,   f 


■■^-  Vk 


JUVENILE  BOOKSELLER  'g 

ATs'l)     STATIONER,  ^\\ 

N.  S.  Fourth  St.,  bet.  Maiyi  k,  Ss , 
Walnut,  Cincinvati.         \     \' 


DEPOSITORY. 


,^^ 


{z 


~<^ 


Z^  ^^^    $:/te^i-^*^ 


H^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 

Presented    by~Y=V^^\  d^erxV^Vb^Vorx 

BX   5950    .B376    1843 
Barnes,  Albert,    1798-1870. 
An  inquiry  into  the 
organization  and  government 


^^/^>^^c>  Lg^^U^- 


INQUIRY 


ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 


OF  THE 


APOSTOLIC  CHURCH 


PARTICULARLY    WITH    REFERENCE    TO    TH 


CLAIMS  OF  EPISCOPACY 


y 


BY   ALBERT   BARNES. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PERKINS    AND    PURVES, 

No.  134  CHESTNUT  STREET. 

1843. 


^■»  y  r\  VA 


Entebed  according"  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year 
1843,  by  Albekt  Barnes,  in  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of 
the  District  Court  of  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


I.  Aslimead  &.  Co.,  Printers. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


This  little  work  is  designed  to  be  a  Manual  that 
may  be  put  into  the  hands  of  those,  especially  the 
young,  who  are  led  to  inquire  into  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Christian  church.  It  is  not  intended 
to  be  controversial,  or  of  such  a  character  as  to 
provoke  reply;  and  it  is  hoped  that  it  will  not  be 
construed  as  an  attach  on  the  Episcopal  church. 
It  is  submitted  to  the  public  because  it  is  believed 
that  there  is  no  book  that  is  precisely  what  is  need- 
ed, in  regard  to  size  and  character,  on  this  subject, 
to  put  into  the  hands  of  those  in  the  churches  who 
are  interested  in  this  inquiry.  There  are  many 
persons  who  are  interested  in  the  inquiry  who  have 
not  the  time  to  examine  it  very  extensively.  Most 
of  the  works,  also,  which  have  been  written  on  the 
subject,  instead  of  confining  the  investigation  to 
the  Bible,  are  mainly  occupied  with  an  examination 
of  the  antiquities  of  the  church,  and  the  customs 
and  sentiments  of  the  "  fathers."     The  claims  of 


IV  ADVERTISEMENT. 

Episcopacy,  also,  are  often  urged  with  great  zeal, 
and  pressed  sometimes  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
create  embarrassment,  on  those  who  have  been 
trained  in  non-episcopal  churches,  and  there  is 
no  convenient  "manual"  accessible  to  which  we 
can  at  once  refer  as  showing  precisely  how  this 
matter  stands  in  the  New  Testament.  The  inquiry 
pursued  in  this  little  volume  is  wholly  of  a  scriptural 
character,  and  the  object  is  to  place  the  argument 
before  the  mind  in  as  brief  a  compass,  and  in  as 
kind  a  manner,  as  possible. 

The  foundation  of  the  argument  here  presented 
was  embodied  in  two  reviews  of  the  "  Tract"  entitled 
"  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"  by  the  Right 
Rev.  Dr.  H.  U.  Onderdonk.  Those  reviews  were 
first  published  in  the  Quarterly  Christian  Spectator  in 
1834,  and  1 835,  and  subsequently  in  a  small  volume, 
without  material  alteration.  The  articles  have  been 
now  mostly  rewritten ;  they  have  been  cast  into  the 
form  of  a  consecutive  argument,  and  the  controver- 
sial cast  has  been  as  far  as  possible  avoided.  It 
was  not  the  design  in  this  form  of  the  argument  to 
appear  before  the  public  as  the  opponent  of  Dr. 
Onderdonk,  but  as  the  opponent  of  the  Episcopal 


ADVERTISEMENT.  V 

claims.  Still,  the  arguments  used  by  Dr.  Onder- 
donk  have  been  referred  to  and  examined,  because 
he  has  collected  all  that  there  is  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment which  can  be  urged  in  favour  of  "  Episcopa- 
cy," and  has  arranged  the  proof-texts  in  a  conve- 
nient order.  It  was  not  easy  to  avoid  all  reference 
to  the  "Tract,"  and,  therefore,  the  argument  is 
made  to  assume  somewhat  the  form  of  an  examina- 
tion of  the  considerations  presented  there. 

The  portion  of  the  work  on  "confirmation"  is 
entirely  new,  and  was  introduced  because  it  seemed 
desirable  to  show  that  the  claims  set  up  for  this  as 
being  of  divine  appointment  are  wholly  without 
foundation,  and  to  show  its  designed  and  actual  in- 
fluence in  sustaining  the  fabric  of  "  Episcopacy." 

Philadelphia,  April  14,  1843. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Reasons  why  the  argument  on  the  constitution  of  the  church 
should  be  confined  to  the  Scriptures,  .         .         -         - 

(1.)  The  whole  subject  one  of  mere  revelation,  8— 11.  (2.) 
No  authority  has  been  given  to  the  Fathers  to  determine  the 
question,  11,  12.  (3.)  Evidence  in  the  New  Testament  that 
the  appeal  should  be  confined  to  the  Scriptures,  12 — 14.  (4.) 
The  Fathers  of  the  church  were  not  in  circumstances  so  fa- 
vourable to  give  the  proper  information  as  the  apostles, 
14 — 15.  (5.)  It  is  impossible  to  settle  the  question  by  an  ap- 
peal to  the  Fathers,  15~2'i.  (6.)  The  point  conceded  by  Epis- 
copalians themselves,  26—34. 

CHAPTER  II. 
The  claims  which  are  advanced  by  Episcopacy,     .         -         - 

CHAPTER  III. 

Examination  of  the  particular  claims  of  Episcopacy, 

Sect.  1.— The  exclusive  claim  of  the  "  bishop"  to  the  right 
of  ordination.— The  question  whether  the  apostles  alone  had 
this  right,  41.  The  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office.  The 
apastles  were  originally  appointed  to  be  "  witnesses"  of  the 
resurrection  of  Christ,  42—47.  This  confirmed  by  the  elec- 
tion of  Matthias,  47—49 ;  by  the  statements  of  the  apostles, 
49,  50;  by  the  case  of  Paul,  50—54. 

Ihe  inquiiy  whether  there  was  any  arrangement  for  con- 
tinuing the  *'  succession  of  the  apostles,"  55.  The  burden  of 
proof  on  Episcopalians,  55,  56.  (l.)  There  is  no  express 
statement  that  the  "  succession"  was  to  be  continued,  56—62  ; 
(2.)  There  is  no  arrangement  which  shows  that  it  was  design- 
ed  that  it  should  be  continued.  Examination  of  the  alleged 
proofs  :— the  argument  fiom  the  case  of  Matthias,  64—73  ;  of 
Baniabas,  73 — 81 ;  of  James,  81,  82  ;  of  Andronicus  and  Ju- 
nia,  82,  83  ;  from  the  charge  of  Paul  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus, 
83,  84  ;  from  the  case  of  limothy,  85—107  ;  of  Titus,  107— 
111  ;  of  the  "  angei"  of  the  churches  in  Rev.  ij.  iii,  ill — 119. 
The  point  practically  conceded  by  Episcopalians,  120 — 123 ; 
the  impossibihty  of  establishing    tlie  »♦  succession"— case  of 


Page 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

Page 
the  ordination  of  English  "  bishops"  by  Scotch  presbyters, 
124—127  ;  tfstimony  of  Hooker,  127,  128  ;  concession  and  ar- 
gument of  Archbishop  Whately,  128—134. 

Sect.  2.— The  rite  of  Confirmation,        ....  135—160 

Wliat  understood  by  it,  135 — 137  ;  claimed  to  be  of  divine 
authority,  137—141.  The  use  of  the  word  "  confirm"  in  the 
New  Testament,  141 — 142.  The  laying  on  of  hands  urged  in 
support  of  the  claim  shown  to  be  connected  with  imparting 
the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  142—148.  Examina- 
tion of  the  passage  in  Heb.  vi.  1,  2,  148—151.  The  Saviour 
appointed  no  such  rite,  151 — 153.  Objections  to  the  rite, 
153—160. 

Sect.  3. — The  claims  of  the  "  bishop"  to  the  right  of  supervi- 
sion and  discipline,  ......  iso — 185 

The  two  cases  of  discipline  appealed  to  by  Episcopalians 
examined :  that  in  Corinth,  162—178  ;  that  in  Ephesus,  178 
—185. 

CHAPTER  IV. 
The  constitution  of  the  church  as  established  by  the  Saviour 

and  the  Apostles, 185—251 

Sect.  1.— The  officers  of  the  church, 185-205 

I.  Those  which  were  designed  to  be  temporary,  (1.)  the  apos- 
tles, 187—189  ;  (2.)  the  seventy  disciples,  189—192 ;  (3.) 
prophets,  192,  193  ;  (40  deaconesses,  193,  194. 

II.  Permanent  officers  mentioned  in  the  organization  of  the 
church  in  the  New  Testament.  (I.)  Ihose  appointed  to 
the  office  of  ministers,  194 — 198,  under  the  names  of  (a) 
preachers,  194 ;  {b)  bishops  or  overseers,  195 ;  (c)  pastors, 
196 ;  {d)  teachers,  197 ;  (e)  evangelists,  197  ;  (2.)  rulers, 
198—201;  (3.)  deacons,  201— 203.  (4.)  Evidence  that  the 
pei-manent  pastoral  relation  was  intended,  203 — 205. 

Sect.  2. — The  actual  organization  and  government  of  the  church 

as  described  in  the  New  Testament,  ....         205 — 236 

(1.)  Presbyters  had  the  right  of  ordaining,  206,  seq.  Proof 
from  1  Tim.  iv.  14,  pp.  208—221.  (2.)  The  churches  were  en- 
trusted with  the  right  of  administering  discipline.  Proof 
from  Acts  xx.  17,  28,  p.  222;  from  1  Pet.  v.  2,  3,  p.  222  ;  from 
Heb.  xiii.  7  ;  from  I  Thess.  v.  12,  pp.  221—229. 

Sect.  3. — The  primitive  churches  were  organized  without  a  pre- 
late, and  without  three  "  orders  of  clergy,"     ...     229 236 

Sect.  4. — Conclusion,        .......     237 251 


AN  INQUIRY,  &c. 


CHAPTER  I. 


REASONS  WHY  THE  ARGUMENT  ON  THE  CONSTITU- 
TION OF  THE  CHURCH  SHOULD  BE  CONFINED 
WHOLLY  TO  THE  SCRIPTURES. 

In  the  discussion  pursued  in  this  vohune,  the  ar- 
gument will  be  confined  wholly  to  the  Scriptures,  for 
the  following  reasons : 

1.  The  wliole  subject  of  the  organization  and 
government  of  the  church  is  one  of  mere  revela- 
tion. It  is  connected  with  a  revealed  religion,  and 
there  can,  therefore,  be  no  authority  in  the  case, 
except  that  derived  from  the  declared  will  of  God. 
It  is  now  claimed  for  the  church,  by  all  the  parties 
in  the  controversy — whatever  may  have  been  true 
in  times  past  under  the  Papacy — that  it  is  a  divine 
institution ;  and  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  with 
one  voice,  maintam  that  their  ministry  is  of  divine 
appointment.  It  never  occurs  to  them  to  affirm  that 
the  arrangement  of  the  clergy  into  "  three  orders" 
is  a  mere  matter  of  expediency,  or  is  adopted 
because  experience  has  shown  that  this  is  the  best 
2 


10  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

arrangement,  or  because  other  methods  have  failed 
in  promoting  the  spirituality  of  the  church,  or  even 
because  it  has  unbroken  tradition  in  its  favour.  It 
is  urged  that  the  arrangement  is  of  divine  authority, 
and  it  is  adopted  primarily  because  it  is  believed  to 
be  founded  in  the  Bible.  So  uniform  are  the  claims 
on  this  point,  that  if  this  were  abandoned  the  whole 
fabric  would  fall,  and  the  claim  of  being  the  only 
arrangement  which  God  has  made  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church,  which  is  now  set  up  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  prelacy,  must  then  be  given  up ;  for  if 
it  were  a  mere  matter  of  expediency,  any  other  sys- 
tem founded  on  expediency  would  be  equally  proper 
and  binding. 

Such  being  the  case,  it  is  clear  that  the  whole 
argument  should  be  confined  to  the  Scriptures.  If 
the  religion  with  which  the  ministry  is  connected 
were  a  mere  matter  of  human  origin  or  human  ap- 
pointment, then  an  appeal  to  the  Bible  as  a  supposed 
revelation  would  be  impertinent  and  improper.  If 
it  were  a  religion  of  the  state,  then  all  that  would 
be  needful  would  be  to  appeal  to  the  statutes  of  the 
land.  If  it  were  a  question  of  expediency,  then  the 
appeal  should  be  to  what  experience  has  shown  to 
be  the  best  methods  of  government,  and  to  the  dif- 
erent  degrees  of  probable  advantage  which  could  be 
urged  in  favour  of  different  systems.  If  it  were  to 
be  settled  by  mere  custom,  or  by  antiquity — as  it 
may  occur  that  the  claim  to  title  to  lands  is  to  be 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHLRCH.  1  1 

settled,  or  as  it  may  be  necessary  to  determine 
some  usage  or  right  under  a  civil  government,  then 
it  would  be  proper  to  appeal  to  antiquity,  and  to 
call  in  the  aid  of  the  Fathers.  But  none  of  these 
things  exist.  It  is  not  a  human  institution ;  nor  a 
mere  creature  of  the  state;  nor  a  thing  of  expedi- 
ency ;  nor  a  simple  question  about  antiquity : — it  is 
a  question  whether  God  has  appointed  the  Episco- 
pal orders  of  the  ministry  to  govern  the  churches^ 
and  this  question  can  be  settled  only  by  -an  appeal 
to  the  Scriptures. 

2.  No  authority  has  been  conceded  to  the  "  Fa- 
thers" to  determine  this  question.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  they  were  authorized  by  the  Head  of 
the  Church,  either  individually  or  by  councils,  to 
determine  what  should  be  the  arrangement  in  the 
government  of  the  church,  nor  is  there  any  evidence 
that  they  were  to  be  regarded  as  the  infallible  ex- 
pounders of  what  the  will  of  the  Author  of  the 
Christian  system  was.  It  was  not  promised  that 
they  should  have  any  special  wisdom  to  arrange 
matters  in  the  church ;  to  appoint  officers ;  to  settle 
controversies,  or  to  appoint  orders  in  the  ministry 
which  should  be  regarded  as  commissioned  by  God. 
If  the  importance  which  has  been  attached  to  their 
views  in  this  matter  had  been  contemplated  by  the 
Saviour,  it  is  remarkable  that  he  left  no  intimation 
that  their  sentiments  would  be  entitled  to  such 
deference,  or  that  their  declarations  should  be  au- 


12  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

thoritative  in  the  churches.  If  it  had  been  intended 
that  councils  should  be  regarded  as  having  authority 
to  settle  this,  then  there  is  every  reason  to  suppose 
that  some  intimation  of  this  would  be  furnished  in 
the  discourses  of  the  Saviour.  It  is  needless,  how- 
ever, to  say  that  no  such  authority  from  the  New 
Testament  can  be  adduced. 

3.  There  is  evidence  in  the  New  Testament 
itself,  that  the  appeal  should  be  confined  to  the 
Scriptures,  and  that  Christ  meant  that  the  inquiry 
should  be  limited  to  them.  This  evidence  is  found 
in  such  circumstances  as  these.  The  account  of 
the  manner  in  which  he  organized  the  church 
looks  as  if  he  designed  to  arrange  the  whole  sub- 
ject himself,  so  as  to  leave  no  ground  for  the  neces- 
sity of  an  appeal  to  coming  generations  of  men. 
He  set  apart  a  body  of  men  with  great  solemnity, 
and  invested  them  with  great  authority,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  preaching  the  gospel  and  organizing  the 
church.  He  taught  them  more  than  three  years  per- 
sonally, and  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  them  fully  ac- 
quainted with  his  views  and  designs.  He  gave 
them  full  authority  in  the  case  to  "  bind  and  loose;" 
to  establish  and  dissolve;  with  no  intimation  that 
this  duty  was  to  devolve  on  any  of  their  successors. 
The  instructions  which  he  gave,  were  given  to  them, 
not  to  a  fancied  order  of  successors ;  to  those  whom 
he  had  trained  under  his  own  eye,  not  to  those  who 
were  to  be  trained  under  theirs.   He  never  intimated 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  13 

that  they  would  be  unable  to  complete  the  arrange- 
ment, and  to  settle  the  church  on  a  permanent 
basis;  or  that  it  would  be  necessary  for  them  to 
leave  any  part  of  the  arrangement  to  be  perfected 
in  future  times.  Those  men,  thus  appointed,  actu- 
ally undertook  the  work,  fully  believing  that  they 
were  competent  to  it,  and  acting  just  as  if  they  were 
empowered  to  complete  the  arrangement.  They 
went  forth  and  preached;  they  founded  churches; 
they  appointed  officers ;  they  gave  directions  in  re- 
gard to  the  rites  and  observances  of  worship ;  and 
they  undeniably  left  the  impression  every  where 
that  they  regarded  themselves  as  invested  with  the 
fullest  authority  to  organize  the  church.  A  record 
has  been  preserved,  containing  a  full  account  of 
what  was  done  by  them  in  establishing  churches, 
and  to  what  can  we  so  naturally  look  as  to  that,  to 
know  in  what  manner  the  Saviour  designed  that  it 
should  be  done?  There  is  no  intimation  in  that 
record,  or  in  any  of  the  writings  of  these  apostles, 
that  they  left  any  thing  to  be  done,  or  to  be  testified 
of,  by  those  who  should  succeed  them.  There  is  no 
hint  that  their  successors  were  to  complete  or  to 
perfect  the  plan ;  or  that  they  were  to  give  informa- 
tion about  what  the  apostles  had  done.  Any  one 
who  reads  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the  Epistles, 
cannot  fail  to  be  convinced  that  the  writers  supposed 
they  were  giving  all  the  information  which  was 
2* 


14  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

needful   for   the   guidance  of  mankind   about  the 
organization  of  the  Christian  church. 

4.  The  "  Fathers"  of  the  church  were  not  in  cir- 
cumstances so  favourable  to  give  the  proper  infor- 
mation as  the  apostles  themselves.  The  ^'  Fathers" 
comprise  a  succession  of  men  who  lived  in  the  first 
centuries  of  the  Christian  ^xa — usually  supposed  to 
include  those  who  lived  in  the  first  four  or  five  cen- 
turies. Subsequent  to  that  period  no  one  appeals  to 
the  "  Fathers''^  in  proof  of  what  was  the  early  consti- 
tution of  the  Christian  church.  Yet,  within  that  time, 
what  extraordinary  advantage  had  they  for  know- 
ing what  was  done  by  the  apostles?  Why  should 
we  appeal  to  them,  rather  than  to  the  record  which 
the  apostles  themselves  made  of  what  they  had 
done?  They  were  not  inspired  men;  most  of  them 
lived  in  places  remote  from  the  fields  where  the 
apostles  laboured;  and  not  a  few  of  them,  unde- 
niably, several  generations  after  the  apostles.  Why 
should  we  go  to  them  to  know  what  order  the 
apostles  established  in  the  church?  Why  should 
we  dip  up  water  from  the  muddy  streams  where  the 
Ganges  or  the  Mississippi  pour  their  floods  into  the 
ocean,  afl;er  it  has  worn  the  shores  and  mingled 
with  the  streams  flowing  into  it  for  thousands  of 
miles,  to  know  what  the  water  is  at  the  fountain? 
He  who  could  stand  near  those  fountains,  and  drink 
the  water  there,  would  never  think  of  wandering  by 
the  course  of  the  turbid  river  to  examine  it  as  it 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  15 

flows  along,  or  as  it  mingles  with  the  ocean,  to  know 
what  were  its  qualities. 

5.  It  is  impossible  to  settle  the  question  by  an 
appeal  to  the  "  Fathers."  The  attempt  has  been 
made  in  this  controversy  for  centuries,  and  with  no 
prospect  of  coming  any  nearer  to  a  termination. 
To  whatever  cause  it  may  be  traced,  it  is  a  simple 
matter  of  history,  that  no  witnesses  o^  facts  have 
ever  been  less  satisfactory  than  the  so  called  Chris- 
tian Fathers.  No  set  of  writers  have  ever  lived, 
from  whom  so  contradictory  statements  are  de- 
rived ;  who  can  be  appealed  to  with  so  much  plausi- 
bility on  both  sides  of  a  question,  and  whom  it  is  so 
easy  to  set  in  array  against  each  other.  As  this 
will  be  conceded  by  all  who  have  ever  read  them, 
or  who  have  ever  looked  into  the  controversies  on 
the  subject  of  the  organization  of  the  church,  it  is 
unnecessary  to  adduce  any  proof  of  it.  This  re- 
mark can  be  made  without,  in  the  least,  impeaching 
the  piety  of  the  Fathers,  or  undervaluing  the  ser- 
vices which  they  rendered  to  the  cause  of  truth,  or 
displacing  them  from  the  position  which  they  ought 
to  hold  in  the  affections  and  grateful  remembrance 
of  mankind.  Whatever  may  be  the  fact  about  the 
actual  contradictions,  or  want  of  consistency,  or 
want  of  a  strict  regard  to  truth,  of  any  of  the  Fa- 
thers, it  can  be  traced  to  other  causes  than  to  a  want 
of  piety,  or  honesty,  or  general  excellence  of  char- 
acter.    Much  may  be  said,  on  each  of  these  points, 


16  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

with  more  plausibility  and  probability  than  would 
be  desirable  when  speaking  of  good  men,  but  it  is 
not  necessary  to  say  this  in  order  to  see  their  entire 
unfitness  to  decide  the  Episcopal  controversy.  In 
the  management  of  this  controversy  hitherto,  it  is 
impossible  for  any  one,  who  has  any  suitable  regard 
for  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  not  to  have  felt  pain 
at  the  manner  in  which  the  argument  has  been  con- 
ducted. 

By  common  consent,  almost,  the  writers  on  both 
sides  have  turned  from  the  New  Testament  where 
the  controversy  might  have  been  brought  to  a 
speedy  issue,  to  listen  to  the  decisions  of  the  Fa- 
thers; and,  as  might  have  been  expected,  have 

*•  Found  no  end,  in  wandering*  mazes  lost." 

It  was  the  policy  of  the  friends  of  prelacy  to  do  so ; 
and  it  was  the  folly  of  their  opponents  to  suffer  them 
to  choose  the  field  of  debate,  and  to  weary  them- 
selves in  an  effort  to  fix  the  meaning,  to  secure  the 
consistency,  and  obtain  the  suffrages  of  the  Fathers. 
Full  well  was  it  known,  by  the  friends  of  Episco- 
pacy in  other  times,  that  the  New  Testament  could 
furnish  only  the  most  slender  support  for  their 
claims.  In  the  times  of  the  papacy,  it  had  always 
been  defended  by  an  appeal  to  the  Fathers.  The 
system  had  risen  then,  sustained,  not  even  profes- 
sedly, by  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  but  by  the  tra- 
ditions of  the  elders.    The  ranks  and  orders  of  the 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  17 

papal  priesthood  could  be  defended  only  by  the  au- 
thority of  a  church  which  claimed  infallibility,  and 
which  might  dispense,  therefore,  with  the  New  Tes- 
tament.  The  Reformers  came  forth  from  the  bosom 
of  the  papacy  with  much  of  this  feeling.  They  ap- 
proached this  subject  with  high  reverence  for  the 
opinions  of  past  times ;  with  a  deference  for  the  Fa- 
thers, nourished  by  all  the  forms  of  their  education, 
by  all  existing  institutions,  and  by  the  reluctance  of 
the  human  mind  to  break  away  from  the  established 
customs  of  ages.  On  the  one  hand,  the  advocates 
of  Episcopacy  found  their  proofs  in  the  common  law 
of  the  church — the  institutions  which  had  existed 
"  time  whereof  the  memory  of  man  runneth  not  to 
the  contrary ;"  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  opponents 
of  prelacy  were  equally  anxious  to  show  that  they 
had  not  departed  from  the  customs  of  the  Fathers, 
and  that  the  defence  of  their  institutions  might  be 
found  in  times  far  remote,  and  in  records  which  re- 
ceived the  veneration,  and  commanded  the  confi- 
dence of  the  Christian  world.  Into  this  abyss  both 
parties  plunged.  In  this  immense  chaos  of  opinions 
and  interpretations ;  into  these  moving,  disorganized, 
jostling  elements,  where,  as  in  the  first  chaos,  light 
struggled  with  darkness,  and  confusion  reigned,  they 
threw  themselves,  to  endeavour  severally  to  find  the 
support  of  their  opinions.  "  Whatsoever  time,  or 
the  heedless  hand  of  blind  chance,"  says  Milton, 
"  hath  drawn  down  from  of  old  to  this  present,  in 


18         ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

her  huge  drag-net,  whether  fish  or  sea-weed,  shells 
or  shrubs,  unpicked,  unchosen,  those  are  the  Fa- 
thers." With  those  who,  according  to  Mosheim,* 
deemed  it  not  only  lawful,  but  commendable,  to 
deceive  and  lie  for  the  sake  of  truth  and  piety,  it 
would  be  singular  if  any  point  could  be  settled  by 
that  involved  controversy.  With  men  who  held  to 
every  strange  and  ridiculous  opinion;  to  every 
vagary  that  the  human  mind  can  conceive  ;f  it  would 
be  strange  if  both  sides  in  this  controversy  did  not 
find  enough  that  had  the  appearance  of  demonstra- 
tion, to  perplex  and  embarrass  an  opponent  ad  libi- 
tum. In  examining  this  controversy,  as  it  was  con- 
ducted in  former  times,  no  one  could  help  being 
amused  or  pained  at  the  perfect  complacency  with 
which  a  passage  from  one  of  the  Fathers  is  adduced 
in  defence  of  either  side  of  the  question,  and  the 
perfect  ease  with  which,  by  a  new  translation,  or  by 
introducing  a  few  words  of  the  context,  or  more 
frequently  by  an  appeal  to  some  other  part  of  the 
same  author,  not  studious  himself  of  consistency, 
the  passage  is  shown  to  mean  just  the  contrary; 
and  then  again  a  new  version,  or  yet  another  quota- 
tion, would  give  it  a  new  aspect,  and  restore  it  to  its 
former  honours^    Thus  the  Fathers  became  a  mere 


*  Murdock's  Mosheim,  vol.  1,  pag-e  159. 
■}■  See  Tillemont's  Ecclesiastical  History,  passim. 
\  See  the  Letters  of  Dr.  Miller,  and  Dr.  Bowden  on 
Episcopacy,  passim. 


OV  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  19 

foot-ball  between  the  contending  parties ;  and  thus, 
in  this  controversy,  the  weary  searcher  for  truth 
finds  no  solid  ground.  Eminently  here,  "  he  which 
is ^rst  in  his  (;ause  seemeth  just;  but  his  neighbour 
Cometh  and  searcheth  him."  Prov.  xviii.  17.  To 
this  wearisome  and  unsatisfactory  toil  he  is  doomed 
who  will  read  all  the  older  controversies  on  Episco- 
pacy.    There  he, 

"  O'er  bog-,  or  steep,  through  strait,  rough,  dense  or  rare. 
With  head,  hands,  wings  or  feet,  pursues  his  way, 
And  swims,  or  sinks,  or  wades,  or  creeps,  or  flies." 

Were  we  to  adduce  the  most  striking  instance  of 
the  plastic  nature  of  this  kind  of  proof,  we  should 
refer  to  the  epistles  of  Ignatius.  They  seem  to  be 
a  plain,  straight-forward  account  of  the  existence  of 
Presbyterianism  in  his  time.  They  are  substantially 
such  a  description  as  a  man  would  give,  writing  in 
the  inflated  and  exaggerated  manner  in  which  the 
Orientals  wrote,  of  Presbyterianism  as  it  exists  in 
the  United  States.  Yet  it  is  well  known,  that  with 
the  utmost  pertinacity,  those  letters  have  been  ad- 
duced as  proving  the  doctrine  of  Episcopacy.  And 
so  confident  have  been  the  assertions  on  this  sub- 
ject, that  not  a  few  non-Episcopalians  have  given 
them  up  as  unmanageable,  and  have  stoutly  con- 
tended, what  may  be  very  true,  that  no  inconsider- 
able part  of  them  are  forgeries. 

Any  man  can  see  what  a  hopeless  task  is  before 
him,  if  he  endeavours  to  settle  this  controversy  by 


20  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

the  authority  of  the  Fathers.  The  waste  of  time, 
and  talent,  and  learning,  on  this  subject,  is  fitted 
deeply  to  humble  the  heart.  And  the  passion  has 
not  ceased.  Even  now,  men  high  iij  office  and  in 
rank,  leave  the  New  Testament  and  appeal  to  the 
Fathers.  Episcopacy  is  discarded,  not  principally 
because  the  New  Testament  is  a  stranger  to  it,  but 
because  Jerome  was  not  a  prelatist;  it  is  rejected, 
not  because  it  cannot  be  made  out  from  the  Bible, 
but  because  it  is  a  matter  of  debate  whether  the 
Fathers  teach  it  or  not. 

I  have  said  that  it  is  not  necessary,  in  showing 
that  the  appeal  should  be  carried  at  once  to  the  New 
Testament  in  settling  the  claims  of  Episcopacy,  to- 
deny  the  piety,  to  impugn  the  general  veracity,, 
honesty  and  credibility  of  the  Fathers.  How  valu- 
able their  testimony  may  he  on  legitimate  subjects, 
and  how  much  harmony  there  may  be  on  some 
points  of  great  importance  to  the  world  and  the 
church,  may  be  seen  from  Lardner's  Credibility — 
that  immortal  work  to  which  a  most  meritorious 
scholar  devoted  his  life. 

Apart  from  all  that  might  be  said  to  impugn  that 
authority  on  certain  points,  there  are  other  circum- 
stances which  show,  in  the  most  ample  manner, 
that  such  a  controversy  cannot  be  settled  by  an  ap- 
peal to  them.  One  is,  the  great  number  of  the 
authorities  to  be  examined,  and  the  amount  of 
writing  with  which  a  man  must  become  familiar 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  21 

who  relies  on  this  testimony — putting  it  wholly  out 
of  the  power  of  the  great  mass  of  Christians,  and 
even  of  ministers  of  the  gospel,  to  determine  what 
was  the  organization  of  the  church,  if  the  appeal 
was  to  be  made  to  them.  In  the  works  of  the  Fa- 
thers, to  which  I  have  access,  embracing  those  of 
the  first  five  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  there  are 
no  less  than  Jlfty -four  folio  volumes,  besides  a  con- 
siderable number  of  smaller  size.  How  could  the 
mass  of  Christians  hope  to  obtain  sufficient  famili- 
arity with  those  numerous  and  massive  tomes,  to  be 
able  to  educe  from  them  a  correct  view  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  primitive  church?  How  different 
such  an  appeal,  in  regard  to  the  facility  of  coming 
to  any  satisfactory  conclusion,  compared  with  that 
to  the  small  volume  of  the  New  Testament!  A 
second  circumstance.  Those  volumes  are  all  in 
languages  now  unspoken.  There  is,  of  necessity, 
therefore,  much  difficulty  in  arriving  with  certainty 
at  the  exact  meaning.  There  is  much  ambiguity ; 
much  to  perplex  the  scholar;  much  which  may  be 
plausibly  interpreted  in  different  modes,  and  which 
may,  by  a  new  translation,  or  being  presented  in  a 
different  connexion,  be  adduced  on  both  sides  of  a 
question.  Besides,  how  are  the  mass  of  Christians 
all  over  the  world,  to  have  access  to  those  volumes? 
Can  it  be  presumed  that  they  are  sufficiently  fami- 
liar with  the  Greek  and  Latin  tongues  to  be  able  to 
settle  a  controversy  of  this  nature?  A  third  cir- 
3 


22  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVKRNMENT 

cumstance.  There  is  much  that  is  vague  in  state- 
ment ;  unsettled  in  definition ;  loose  in  narrative  or 
declamation  among  those  writers,  as  there  must 
be  always  among  so  voluminous  authors.  It  is  un- 
deniable, too,  that  they  not  unfrequently  contradict 
each  other  and  themselves.  A  fourth  circumstance 
may  be  adverted  to.  It  is  the  remarkable  differ- 
ence in  regard  to  simplicity,  clearness,  directness, 
apparent  honesty,  and  all  that  gives  value  to  written 
testimony,  between  the  character  of  the  writings  of 
the  Apostles  and  the  Fathers.  This  difference,  I 
cannot  better  express,  than  in  the  language  of  one 
well  qualified  to  express  it,  and  who  has  noticed  the 
difference  with  no  reference  to  the  point  now  under 
discussion.  It  is  the  testimony  of  Neander.*  "  The 
first  authors  which  succeeded  the  apostles,  are  the 
so-called  Christian  Fathers,  who  began  at  the  apos- 
tolic times,  and  should  have  been  the  scholars  of  the 
apostles.  In  this  kind  of  writers,  a  particular  thing 
deserving  attention  is  the  remarkable  difference  be- 
tween the  writings  of  the  apostles  and  the  writings  of 
the  apostolic  Fathers  who  lived  even  so  near  to  their 
times.  The  transition  from  one  class  of  writers  to 
another,  is  usually  gradual ;  here  it  is  sudden.  There 
is  here  no  gradual  transition,  but  a  spring  [or  leap — 
ein  sprung,]  which  is  sufficient  to  turn  the  attention 

*  Geschichte  d.  Christlichen  Relig-ion  und  Kirche,  i.  c* 
1099. 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  2*3 

to  the  recognition  of  the  special  efficiency  of  the 
Divine  Spirit  in  the  souls  of  the  apostles." 

On  this  subject,  also,  the  following  remarks  of 
Archbishop  Whately,  will  commend  themselves  to 
every  candid  mind,  and  they  are  of  the  more  value, 
as  they  come  from  one  who  has  been  honoured  with 
the  highest  office  in  the  gift  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 

"  For  when  referred  to  the  works  of  the  orthodox 
ancient  Fathers,  they  find  that  a  very  large  portion 
of  these  works  are  lost;  or  that  some  fragments  or 
reports  of  them  by  other  writers  alone  remain :  they 
find  again  that  what  has  come  down  to  us  is  so  vast 
in  amount  that  a  life  is  not  sufficient  for  the  atten- 
tive study  of  even  the  chief  part  of  it;  they  find 
these  authors  by  no  means  agreed,  on  all  points, 
with  each  other,  or  with  themselves,  and  that 
learned  men  again  are  not  agreed  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  them  ;  and  still  less  agreed  as  to  the  ortho- 
doxy of  each,  and  the  degree  of  weight  due  to  his 
judgement  on  several  points;  nor  even  agreed  by 
some  centuries  as  to  the  degree  of  antiquity  that  is 
to  make  the  authority  of  each  decisive,  or  more  or 
less  approaching  to  decisive. 

"  Every  thing  in  short  pertaining  to  this  appeal  is 
obscure — uncertain — disputable — and  actually  dis- 
puted— to  such  a  degree,  that  even  those  who  are 
not  able  to  read  the  original  authors  may  yet  be 
perfectly  competent  to  perceive  how  unstable  a 
foundation  they  furnish.     They  can  perceive  that 


24  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

the  mass  of  Christians  are  called  on  to  believe  and 
to  do  what  is  essential  to  Christianity,  in  implicit 
reliance  on  the  reports  of  their  respective  pastors, 
as  to  what  certain  deep  theological  antiquarians 
have  reported  to  them,  respecting  the  reports  given 
by  certain  ancient  Fathers,  of  the  reports  current  in 
their  times,  concerning  apostolical  usages  and  insti- 
tutions !  And  yet  whoever  departs  in  any  degree 
from  these  is  to  be  regarded  at  best  in  an  interme- 
diate state  between  Christianity  and  Heathenism! 
Surely  the  tendency  of  this  procedure  must  be  to 
drive  the  doubting  into  confirmed  (though  perhaps 
secret)  infidelity,  and  to  fill  with  doubts  the  most 
sincerely  pious,  if  they  are  anxiously  desirous  of 
attaining  truth,  and  unhappily  have  sought  it  from 
such  instructors."* 

In  settling  an  important  question,  how  different  is 
the  argument  derived  from  such  writings  from  an 
appeal  to  the  New  Testament !  That  is  one  small 
volume;  simple  in  its  character  and  statements; 
easily  perused;  with  no  ambiguity,  no  pomp  of 
rhetoric,  no  prejudice  in  favour  of  an  existing  cus- 
tom; no  contradiction  between  one  writer  and 
another,  and  no  inconsistency  in  the  statements  of 
the  same  writer  at  different  times  and  in  different 
circumstances.  It  contains  not,  moreover,  the  lan- 
guage of  conjecture ;  does  not  depend  for  its  author- 
ity on  human  reasoning ;  and  is  undiluted  in  any  of 

*  Kingdom  of  Christ  Delineated,  pp.  141,  142. 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  25 

its  statements  by  the  reasonings  of  philosophy  or  by 
tradition. 

If  it  should  be  said  here,  that  experience  has 
shown  that  it  is  impossible  to  settle  this  controversy 
by  an  appeal  to  the  Scriptures ;  that  men  differ  as 
much  about  their  meaning  on  the  subject  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  church  as  they  do  about  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Fathers ;  and  that,  though  the  churches 
have  had  the  Bible  for  eighteen  hundred  years,  the 
Christian  world  is  still  wholly  divided  in  opinion  on 
the  subject,  I  reply,  (1.)  That,  whatever  may  be 
the  reasons  why  men  have  varied  so  much  in  their 
interpretation  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  case,  it 
is  still  true  that  it  is  easier  to  come  to  a  determina- 
tion of  the  question  by  an  appeal  to  that  than  by  an 
appeal  to  the  Fathers.  To  the  eye  of  common 
sense  every  where,  it  is  clear  that  the  teachings  of 
a  small  volume  like  the  New  Testament,  written  at 
the  time  when  the  church  was  organized,  and  by 
the  men  who  did  it,  can  be  more  easily  arrived  at 
than  those  of  a  succession  of  voluminous  writers 
such  as  the  Fathers  are,  extending  through  a  period 
of  several  hundred  years.  I  reply,  (2.)  That  one 
main  reason,  and  perhaps  the  only  reason  why  the 
sentiments  of  men  have  been  divided  in  the  case, 
and  why  the  whole  controversy  has  not  been  long 
since  settled,  is,  that  men  are  constantly  leaving  the 
New  Testament  and  appealing  to  the  Fathers.  The 
argument  has  never  been  confined,  on  either  side, 
3* 


26  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

to  the  Bible.  Each  party  has  felt  itself  bound, 
either  in  self-defence,  or  to  meet  its  opponent,  to 
appeal  to  the  Fathers.  The  war  has  raged  there. 
The  triumphs  or  defeats  have  been  on  that  field. 
And  in  the  whole  range  of  the  controversy,  it  is  be- 
lieved, there  is  not  a  single  volume  on  either  side, 
that  makes  the  appeal  solely  and  exclusively  to  the 
Bible.  And  if  this  be  so,  then  it  should  not  be  said 
that  experience  has  shown  that  it  is  impossible  to 
settle  this  inquiry  by  an  appeal  to  the  Scriptures. 
Were  the  volumes  of  the  Fathers  all  burned  and 
forgotten ;  and  were  all  the  influence  which  they 
have  exerted  over  this  controversy  removed,  it 
would  require  but  a  brief  period  to  determine 
whether  Episcopacy  is  founded  on  the  Bible, 

6.  That  the  appeal  should  be  made  to  the  Scrip- 
tures alone,  is  now  conceded  by  Episcopalians  them- 
selves. It  was  long,  indeed,  before  the  advocates 
for  prelacy  were  willing  to  concede,  in  so  many 
words,  that  the  controversy  was  to  be  determined 
wholly  by  the  Bible  ,*  and  though  this  is  now  con- 
ceded inform,  yet  there  is  still  a  manifest  inclina- 
tion in  the  argument,  to  call  in  the  aid  of  the  Fathers. 
That  it  is  conceded  in  principle,  however,  is  a  point 
gained  of  inestimable  importance,  and  will  bring 
the  controversy  to  a  termination,  whenever  it  is 
honestly  and  fully  applied.  That  it  is  conceded,  is 
clear  from  the  admissions  of  one  who,  as  a  Prelate 
of  the  Episcopal  Church,  has  a  right  to  express 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  27 

the  prevalent  sentiment  in  that  church,  and  whose 
words  may  be  regarded  as  having  the  force  of 
authority.  The  sentiment,  also,  should  be  allowed 
to  have  greater  weight,  because  the  "  Tract"  in 
which  it  occurs,  has  been  issued  by  the  "  Protestant 
Episcopal  Tract  Society,"  and  may  be  supposed, 
therefore,  to  express  the  present  views  of  the  whole 
Episcopal  Church,  at  least  in  the  United  States. 
The  language  of  Dr.  Onderdonk,  in  the  "  Tract" 
referred  to,*  is  the  following :  "  The  claim  of  Epis- 
copacy to  be  of  divine  institution,  and  therefore 
obligatory  on  the  church,  rests  fundamentally  on 
the  one  question  :  has  it  the  authority  of  Scripture  ? 
If  it  has  not,  it  is  not  necessarily  binding."  "  This 
one  point  should  be  kept  in  view,  in  every  discus- 
sion of  the  subject;  no  argument  is  worth  taking 
into  the  account,  that  has  not  a  palpable  bearing  on 
the  clear  and  naked  topic — the  scriptural  evidence  of 
Episcopacy,"  p.  3.  The  simple  and  honest  avowal 
of  a  sentiment  like  this  from  such  a  quarter,  should 
be  hailed  by  every  friend  of  the  truth,  as  placing 
the  whole  of  this  discussion  on  a  proper  basis.  It 
is  a  subject  of  sincere  congratulation,  that  it  is  now 
conceded  that  we  may  bring  to  this  subject  the 
great  principle  of  the  Reformation,  that  all  religious 

*  Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture."  I  quote  now,  and 
shall  hereafter,  from  the  "  Tract"  published  in  connexion 
with  other  articles  on  the  subject,  and  called  "Epis- 
copacy Examined  and  Re-examined."    New  York,  1835. 


28  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

opinions  are  to  be  tested  by  the  Scriptures.  It  in- 
dicates a  healthy  state  of  things  in  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  this  country.  It  will  save  endless  dis- 
putes about  words,  and  much  useless  toil  in  endea- 
vouring to  give  consistency  and  sense  to  the  Fathers. 
This  mode  of  reasoning,  too,  will  soon  decide  the 
controversy.  Hereafter,  let  it  be  held  up  as  a  great 
principle,  from  which,  neither  in  spirit  nor  in  form, 
we  are  ever  to  depart,  that  if  the  peculiar  doctrines 
of  Episcopacy  are  not  found  in  the  Scriptures,  they 
are  to  be  honestly  abandoned ;  or  held,  as  Cranmer 
held  them,  as  matters  of  mere  expediency.  Let  this 
truth  go  forth,  never  to  be  recalled ;  and  let  every 
man  who  attempts  to  defend  the  claims  of  prelates, 
appeal  to  the  Bible  alone.  On  this  appeal,  with 
confidence,  we  rest  the  issue  of  this  case. 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that  on  a  revision  of  this  senti- 
ment, so  honestly,  so  unexpectedly,  and  so  boldly  put 
forth  by  Dr.  Onderdonk,  it  is  somewhat  modified, 
and  there  is  a  disposition  shown  to  rely  on  the  aid 
which  may  be  derived  from  the  Fathers.  As  the 
claim  which  he  there  sets  up  for  the  aid  of  the  Fa- 
thers, in  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  on  this 
subject,  is  all  that  would  be  claimed  by  the  mass 
of  the  friends  of  Episcopacy ;  and  as  it  is  important 
to  know  the  exact  place  which  they  should  occupy 
in  this  investigation,  it  may  be  well  to  examine  this 
claim.  In  the  "Answer"  to  the  Review  of  the 
"  Tract,"  (pp.  93,  94,)  Dr.  Onderdonk  holds  the 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  29 

following  language :  "  The  author  of  the  Tract,  in 
his  sermon  at  the  consecration  of  the  four  Bishops 
in  October,  18-32,  advocated  Episcopacy,  besides 
on  other  grounds,  on  that  of  their  being  several 
grades  of  office  in  the  priesthood  of  all  religions, 
false  as  well  as  true,  and  in  all  civil  magistracies 
and  other  official  structures ;  and,  in  his  late  charge, 
he  adverted  to  the  evidence  in  its  favour,  contained 
in  the  Fathers.  There  is  no  reason,  therefore,  for 
thinking  that,  however  a  single  writer  may  use 
selected  arguments  in  a  single  publication,  either  he 
or  other  Episcopalians,  will  (or  should)  narrow  the 
ground  they  have  usually  occupied.  The  Fathers 
are  consulted  on  the  subject,  because  the  fabric  of 
the  ministry  which  they  describe,  forms  an  histori- 
cal basis  for  interpreting  Scripture^ 

These  observations  are  made  by  the  same  writer, 
and  in  connexion  with  the  same  subject,  as  the 
declaration,  that  "  no  argusient  is  worth  taking 
INTO  THE  account,  that  has  not  a  palpable  bear- 
ing on  the  clear  and  naked  topic, — the  Scriptural 
evidence  of  Episcopacy.'''' 

Now,  against  the  principles  of  interpretation  here 
stated,  and  which  the  Tract  led  us  to  suppose  were 
abandoned,  it  is  the  duty  of  all  who  hold  to  the 
supremacy  of  the  Bible,  to  enter  their  decided  and 
solemn  protest.  The  question, — the  only  question  in 
the  case,  is :  Whether  Episcopacy  "  has  the  author- 
ity of  Scripture?"    Tract,  p.  3.     The  affirmation 


30  ORGAMZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

is,  that  if  it  has  not,  "  it  is  not  necessarily  binding." 
p.  3.  The  principle  of  interpretation,  which  is 
subsequently  asserted  to  guide  us  in  this  inquiry,  is, 
that  "  the  Fathers  are  consulted  on  the  subject,  be- 
cause the  fabric  of  the  ministry  which  they  describe, 
forms  an  historical  basis  of  interpreting  Scripture." 
Answer,  p.  3.  In  order  to  understand  what  author- 
ity this  rule  of  interpretation  is  entitled  to,  it  is 
necessary  to  know  what  it  means.  A  "  basis"  is 
defined  to  be  "  the  foundation  of  a  thing ;  that  on 
which  a  thing  stands  or  lies;  that  on  which  it  rests; 
the  ground- work  or  first  principle;  that  which  sup- 
ports."—  Webster.  An  ^^  historical  basis"  must 
mean,  therefore,  that  the  opinions  or  facts  in  his- 
tory, that  is,  in  this  case,  the  testimony  of  the  Fa- 
thers, constitute  the  foundation,  the  ground-work,  or 
first  principle,  of  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible; 
or  that  on  which  such  an  interpretation  rests,  or 
by  which  it  is  supported.  It  would  seem  to  fol- 
low, therefore,  that,  unless  we  first  become  ac- 
quainted with  this  "  historical  basis,"  we  are  wholly 
in  the  dark  about  the  proper  exposition  of  the  Bible, 
and  that  our  interpretation  is  destitute  of  any  true 
support  and  authority. 

To  this  principle  of  interpretation,  in  this  case, 
and  in  all  others,  the  objections  are  obvious  and 
numerous.  (1.)  The  first  lies  against  the  supposed 
necessity  of  having  any  such  previously  ascertained 
basis,  in  order  to  a  just  interpretation  of  the  oracles 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  31 

of  God.  The  objection  lies  wholly  against  the  doc- 
trine, that  the  Scriptures  are  to  be  interpreted  by 
historical  facts  to  be  developed  long  after  the  book 
was  written.  The  great  mass  of  men  are  wholly 
incompetent  to  enter  into  any  such  "  historical" 
inquiry ;  but  the  great  mass  of  men  are  not  unquali- 
fied to  understand  the  general  drift  and  tenor  of  the 
New  Testament.  (2.)  The  statement  is,  that  "  the 
fabric  of  the  ministry  which  they  describe"  is  to 
be  the  basis  of  such  interpretation.  But  who  knows 
what  the  fabric  of  the  ministry  which  they  describe 
is  ?  It  is  to  be  remembered,  that  the  question  is  not 
respecting  the  ministry  in  the  fourth  century  and 
onwards.  But  the  inquiry — and  the  only  one  of 
material  value  on  any  supposition — pertains  to  the 
Fathers  previous  to  that  period.  And  there  every 
thing  is  unsettled.  Prelacy  claims  the  Fathers  in 
that  unknown  age.  The  papacy  claims  the  Fathers 
there.  Presbyterianism  claims  the  Fathers  there. 
Congregationalism  and  Independency  too,  claim 
them  there.  Every  thing  is  chaotic.  And  this  is  the 
very  point  which  has  been  the  interminable  subject 
of  contention  in  this  whole  inquiry,  and  from  which 
it  was  hoped  that  the  world  was  about  to  escape, 
by  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  Tract.  Yet  the 
position  now  advanced  would  lead  us  again  into  all 
the  difficulties,  and  controversies,  and  jostling  ele- 
ments, and  contradictory  statements,  which  have 
always  attended  the  appeal  to  the  Fathers.     If  we 


n 


ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 


are  to  wait  until  we  have  ascertained  "  the  fabric 
of  the  ministry"  which  these  Fathers  describe,  be- 
fore we  have  a  "  basis"  for  interpreting  Scripture, 
we  may  close  the  New  Testament  in  despair. 
(3.)  This  canon  of  interpretation  is  contrary  to  the 
rule  which  Dr.  Onderdonk  has  himself  laid  down 
in  the  Tract  itself,  p.  3.  In  that  instance,  the 
authority  of  the  Scriptures  was  declared  to  be  am- 
ple, and  final.  And  throughout  the  Tract  there  is 
a  manifest  indication  of  a  belief,  that  the  Bible  is 
susceptible  of  interpretation  on  the  acknowledged 
rules  of  language,  and  the  principles  of  common 
sense.  Such  a  manifestation  was  to  be  hailed,  not 
only  as  auspicious  to  the  cause  of  truth  in  regard  to 
the  claims  of  Episcopacy,  but  because  it  evinced 
the  spirit  to  which  the  church  must  come, — of  a 
direct,  unqualified,  and  final  appeal  to  the  word  of 
God, — to  determine  religious  doctrine.  To  that 
standard,  it  is  the  purpose  in  this  argument  to  ad- 
here ;  and,  as  far  as  in  me  lies,  I  intend  to  hold  it 
up  to  the  view  of  men,  and  to  insist  on  the  great 
truth,  that  we  are  not  to  look  for  the  discovery  of 
truth,  by  ascertaining  first  an  "  historical  basis," 
or,  a  set  of  instruments  by  which  we  are  to  measure 
and  adjust  the  proportions  of  truth  which  we  find  in. 
the  revelation  of  God.  Without  any  design  to  dis- 
parage or  undervalue  the  Fathers,  who  are  to  be,  in 
the  main,  reverenced  as  holy,  bold,  and  venerable 
men;  without  any  blindness  to  the  living  lustre  of 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  33 

that  piety  which  led  many  of  them  to  the  stake ; 
without  any  apprehension,  that  their  testimony, 
when  examined,  would  be  found  to  be  on  the  side 
of  Episcopacy, — for  it  remains  yet  to  be  seen,  that 
the  Fathers  of  the  first  two  centuries  ever  dreamed 
of  the  pride  and  domination  which  subsequently- 
crept  into  the  church,  under  the  form  of  prelacy 
and  popery, — it  is  the  duty  of  every  man  who  loves 
the  Bible  and  the  Church  of  God,  to  do  all  in  his 
power  to  extend  and  perpetuate  the  doctrine,  that 
the  ultimate  appeal  in  all  religious  inquiry  is  to  be 
the  Bible,  and  the  Bible  only.  «  The  Bible,"  said 
Chillingworth,  "  is  the  religion  of  the  Protestants." 
And  without  meaning  to  insinuate,  that  this  senti- 
ment is  not  as  honestly  acted  on  by  Episcopalians, 
as  by  any  other  denomination  of  Christians,  it  may 
be  added,  that  the  first  sentence  of  the  Tract  is 
worthy  to  be  written  in  letters  of  gold,  on  the  posts 
of  every  Episcopal  sanctuary,  and  over  every  altar, 
and  on  the  cover  of  every  "Book  of  Common 
Prayer."  "  The  claim  of  Episcopacy  to  he  of 
divine  institution,  and  therefore  obligatory  on  the 
church,  rests  fundamentally  on  the  one  question : — 
Has  it  the  authority  of  Scripture  ?  If  it  has  not,  it 
is  not  necessarily  binding.''''  (4.)  The  fourth  objec- 
tion to  this  rule  of  interpretation  is,  that  it  is,  sub- 
stantially, that  on  which  rests  the  papal  hierarchy. 
It  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  the  papist  could  express 
his  principles  of  interpretation  in  stronger  language, 
4 


34  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

than  that  "  the  Fathers  are  consulted  on  this  sub- 
ject, because  the  fabric  of  the  ministry  which  they 
describe,  forms  an  historical  basis  for  interpreting 
Scripture." 

For  reasons  such  as  have  now  been  stated,  it 
is  proposed  to  conduct  the  following  investigation 
solely  with  reference  to  the  testimony  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. By  the  results  of  such  an  investigation  the 
protestant  community  must  ultimately  abide. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  CLAIMS  WHICH  ARE  ADVANCED  BY  EPISCOPACY. 

Episcopacy  is  a  religion  of  claims.  It  advances 
certain  pretensions  relating  to  important  points  in 
the  government  and  organization  of  the  church, 
which,  if  well-founded,  are  binding  on  all  churches, 
and  which,  in  their  tendency,  go  to  unsettle  the 
claims  of  all  others.  It  is  not  an  argument,  on  the 
part  of  the  Episcopalian,  drawn  from  expediency,  or 
human  prudence,  or  a  conventional  arrangement 
among  men  ;  nor  is  it  an  argument  which  can  admit 
other  churches  to  be  on  the  same  basis  with  them- 
selves, or  other  ministers  to  be  the  commissioned 
servants  of  God.  If  Episcopacy  be  of  divine  origin  ; 
if  it  be  the  form  prescribed  in  the  New  Testament  for 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


35 


the  organization  of  the  church ;  if  it  was  instituted 
by  the  Redeemer  and  the  apostles,  then,  whatever 
other  consequences  may  flow  from  it,  or  however 
inconsistent  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  may  be  in 
carrying  out  these  principles,  the  regular  result  of 
the  claim  is,  that  the  Episcopal  is  the  only  true 
church,  and  all  other  churches  of  human  origin. 
This  consequence  follows  inevitably.  These  re- 
marks are  not  made  with  any  view  of  exciting  pre- 
judice in  any  minds  against  the  system,  but  merely 
to  show  the  nature  of  the  claims  which  are  thus 
advanced.  It  is  well  known  that  these  consequences 
are  not  allowed  by  many  pious  Episcopalians ;  and 
there  is  much  often  gained  on  the  score  of  charity 
in  the  fact,  that  the  advocates  of  a  system  are  not 
always  consistent  with  their  own  principles.  Yet 
any  one  can  see  that  the  claims  of  any  system  to 
be  exclusively  Scriptural  or  of  divine  authority  in  its 
origin,  leads  in  fact,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  to 
the  conclusion  that  all  others  are  mere  human  and 
unauthorised  arrangements. 

In  pursuance  of  this  thought,  I  remark  then,  that 
the  burden  of  proof  lies  wholly  on  the  friends  of 
Episcopacy.  They  set  up  a  claim — a  claim  which 
they  affirm  to  be  binding  on  all  the  churches  of 
every  age.  It  is  a  claim  which  is  specific,  and 
which  must  be  made  out,  or  their  whole  pretensions 
fall.  In  what  predicament  it  may  leave  other 
churches  is  not  the  question.     It  would  not  prove 


36 


ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 


Episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  origin,  could  its  friends 
show  that  Presbyterianism  is  unfounded  in  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  or  that  Congregationalism  has  no  claims  to 
support ;  or  that  Independency  is  unauthorized ;  or 
even  that  lay-ordination  is  destitute  of  direct  sup- 
port. .The  question  after  all  might  be,  whether  it 
was  the  design  of  the  apostles  to  establish  any  par- 
ticular form  of  church  government,  any  more  than 
to  establish  a  fixed  mode  of  civil  administration  ? 
The  specific  point  to  be  made  out  by  Episcopalians 
is,  that  there  is  Scriptural  authority  for  that  which 
is  claimed  for  the  bishops.  And  this  is  not  a  claim 
which  can  be  defended  by  any  doubtful  passages  of 
Scripture,  or  by  any  very  circuitous  mode  of  argu- 
mentation. As  it  is  expected  to  affect  the  whole 
constitution  of  the  church ;  to  constitute,  in  fact,  the 
peculiarity  of  its  organization;  and  to  determine,  to 
a  great  extent  at  least,  the  validity  of  all  its  ordi- 
nances, and  its  ministry  ;  we  have  a  right  to  demand 
that  the  proof  should  not  be  of  a  doubtful  character, 
or  of  a  nature  which  is  not  easily  apprehended  by 
the  ordinary  readers  of  the  New  Testament. 

It  is  a  point  of  essential  importance  in  this  contro- 
versy, that  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on  the  friends  of 
Episcopacy.  It  is  theirs  to  make  out  this  specific 
claim.  To  decide  whether  they  can  do  so,  is  the 
object  of  the  present  inquiry. 

The  claims  of  Episcopacy  as  a  peculiar  institu- 
tion, are  stated  by  Bishop  Onderdonk,  in  the  Tract 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  37 

above  referred  to,  in  the  following  words  :  "  Episco- 
pacy declares  that  the  Christian  ministry  was 
established  in  three  orders^  called,  ever  since  the 
apostolic  age.  Bishops,  Presbyters,  or  Elders  and 
and  Deacons ;  of  which  the  highest  only  has  the 
right  to  ordain  and  confirm,  that  of  general  super- 
vision in  a  diocese,  and  that  of  the  chief  administra- 
tion of  discipline,  besides  enjoying  all  the  powers  of 
the  other  grades.  The  main  question  being  thus 
concerning  the  superiority  of  bishops,  and  the  rights 
of  the  next  order  being  restricted  only  so  much  as 
not  to  be  inconsistent  with  those  of  the  highest,  we 
need  not  extend  our  investigation  of  Scripture  be- 
yond what  is  requisite  for  this  grand  point.  If  we 
cannot  authenticate  the  claims  of  the  Episcopal 
office,  we  will  surrender  those  of  our  deacons,  and 
let  all  power  be  confined  to  the  one  office  of  presby- 
ters," p.  11.  The  same  view  of  the  main  point  of 
the  controversy  is  given  by  Hooker,  in  his  Eccle- 
siastical Polity,  b.  vii.  §  2.  It  will  be  seen  here, 
therefore,  that  the  main  point  of  the  discussion,  in 
the  estimation  of  Episcopalians,  relates  to  bishops 
or  prelates,  and  that  the  claim  set  up  for  them  ex- 
tends to  several  points.  One  is,  the  right  of  ordina- 
tion ;  a  second,  that  of  confirmation  ;  a  third,  that  of 
general  supervision ;  a  fourth,  that  of  the  general 
administration  of  discipline.  As  all  that  is  peculiar 
to  Episcopacy  is  involved  in  these  claims,  it  is  pro- 
posed to  examine  them  in  order,  to  ascertain 
4* 


38  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

whether  these  important  matters  in  the  organization 
of  the  church  are  entrusted  in  the  New  Testament 
to  prelates.  If  the  claim,  in  regard  to  each  of  them 
cannot  be  made  out  from  the  New  Testament^  it  is 
worthless,  for  "  no  argument  is  worth  taking  into 
account  that  has  not  a  palpable  bearing  on  the  clear 
and  naked  topic — the  Scriptural  evidence  of  Epis- 
copacy." These  points  must  be  made  out  separately 
by  Episcopalians,  to  wit :  that  "  bishops"  have  the 
sole  right  of  ordination ;  that  the  rite,  called  "  con- 
firmation," is  directed  in  the  Scriptures  to  be  admi- 
nistered by  them ;  that  they  have  a  general  super- 
vision of  the  churches  within  a  certain  district,  and 
that  the  general  administration  of  discipline  is  en- 
trusted to  them.  If  these  are  not  made  out,  it  will 
follow  by  the  admission  above,  and  by  the  nature  of 
the  case,  that  presbyters  have  the  right  of  ordination ; 
that  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  are  equal  in  autho- 
rity and  rank,  and  that  the  church,  as  organized  by 
the  Saviour  and  his  apostles,  was  not  Episcopal  in 
its  form.  We  enter  now,  therefore,  upon  a  parti- 
cular examination  of  each  of  these  topics. 


OF  THK  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  39 

CHAPTER  III. 

EXAMIXATIOX    OF    THE    PARTICULAR    CLAIMS    OF 
EPISCOPACY. 

s«»^  Sect.  1. — The  Exclusive  Claims  of  the  ^^ Bishop'''  to 
the  Right  of  Ordination. 

The  claim  in  regard  to  the  superiority  of  the 
"  order  of  Bishop"  to  that  of  Presbyter  or  Elder, 
rests  on  two  points ;  one  is,  that  the  pecuharity 
•of  the  apostoUc  office  consisted  in  the  right  of 
ordination;  and  the  other  is,  that,  supposing  this 
were  so,  "  there  was  continued,  as  had  been  begun 
in  the  apostles,  an  order  of  ministers  superior  to 
tthe  elders,"  Tract,  p.  16,  If  either  of  these  points 
cannot  be  made  out,  the  claim  is  invahd.  For  if 
it  were  demonstrated  that  there  was  entrusted  to  the 
apostles  the  right  of  ordination  as  the  peculiarity 
of  their  office,  it  would  by  no  means  follow,  that 
that  right  was  to  be  continued  in  the  clturch.  It 
might  be  a  temporary  arrangement ;  a  thing  valu- 
able in  the  organization  of  the  church,  but  whose 
necessity  would  expire  when  the  church  was  fairly 
established.  Even  on  the  supposition,  therefore, 
that  the  right  had  ever  existed,  it  would  be  necessary 
to  show  from  the  New  Testament — for  no  testimony 
of  the  Fathers  will  do  here — that  the  Lord  Jesus 
meant  that  such  a  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office 


40  ORGANIZATION   AND  GOVERNMENT 

should  be  continued.  But  if  it  shall  appear  that  the 
right  of  ordination  neve?'  was  a  peculiarity  of  the 
apostolic  office,  but  that  the  apostles  were  called  for 
a  specific  purpose  of  a  different  kind — a  purpose 
which  ceased  of  course  when  they  died — then  it  will 
follow,  that  all  the  claims  of  the  "  Bishops"  as  their 
"  successors,"  are  void.  It  is  proposed,  therefore, 
to  examine  the  New  Testament  with  particular  re- 
ference to  each  of  these  inquiries  ;  first,  whether  the 
right  of  ordination  is  represented  as  the  peculiarity 
of  the  apostolic  office ;  and  secondly,  whether  there 
is  any  proof  in  the  New  Testament  that  it  was 
designed  that  they  should  have  any  "  successors"  in 
their  office.  The  inquiry  will  be  conducted  with 
reference  to  the  argument  in  the  Tract  "  Episcopacy 
Tested  by  Scripture,"  by  Dr  Onderdonk,  for  all  the 
Scriptural  proof  that  can  be  adduced  will  be  found 
to  be  contained  there. 

The  question  then  is.  Has  a  bishop  the  sole 
power  of  ordaining  ?  Is  the  right  of  setting  apart 
to  the  office  of  preaching,  and  administering  the 
sacraments,  confined  in  the  New  Testament  exclu- 
sively to  this  order  of  ministers?  The  Episcopa- 
lian claims  that  it  is.  We  deny  it,  and  ask  him  for 
the  explicit  proof  of  a  point  so  simple  as  this,  and 
one  which  we  have  a  right  to  expect  he  will  make 
out,  with  very  great  clearness,  from  the  sacred 
Scriptures. 

The  first  proof  of  this  point,  adduced  by  Episco- 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  41 

palians  is,  that  the  apostles  had  the  sole  power  of 
ordaining.  This  is  a  highly  important  point  in  the 
discussion,  or  rather,  the  very  hinge  of  the  contro- 
versy. It  cannot,  therefore,  but  be  a  matter  of  sur- 
prise, that  a  writer  who  can  see  the  value  and  bear- 
ing of  an  argument  so  clearly  as  Dr.  Onderdonk, 
should  not  have  thought  himself  called  upon  to  de- 
vote more  than  two  pages  to  its  direct  defence;  and 
that,  without  adducing  any  explicit  passages  of  the 
New  Testament.  The  argument  stated  in  these 
two  pages,  or  these  parts  of  three  pages,  (14,  15, 
16,)  rests  on  the  assumption  that  the  apostles  or- 
dained. "  That  the  apostles  ordained,  all  agree." 
Now,  if  this  means  any  thing  to  the  purpose,  it 
means  that  they  ordained  as  apostles,  or  that  they 
were  set  apart  to  the  apostolic  ofRce  for  the  purpose 
of  ordaining.  Having  made  this  assumption,  the 
writer  adds,  that  a  distinction  is  observed  in  the 
New  Testament  between  "  the  apostles  and  elders," 
"  the  apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren."  He  next 
attempts  to  show,  that  this  distinction  was  not  made 
because  they  "  were  appointed  by  Christ  person- 
ally," nor  because  "  they  had  seen  our  Lord  after 
his  resurrection;"  nor  "because  of  this  power  of 
working  miracles:"  and  then  adds,  "It  follows, 
therefore,  or  will  not  at  least  be  questioned  " — a 
qualification  which  seems  to  look  as  if  the  writer 
had  himself  no  great  confidence  in  the  consecutive- 
ness  of  the  demonstration — "  that  the  apostles  were 

\ 


4^ 


ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 


distinguished  from  the  elders,  because  they  were 
superior  to  them  in  ministerial  power  and  rights." 
p.  15.  This  is  the  argument;  and  this  is  the  whole 
of  it.  On  the  making  out  of  this  point,  depends  the 
stupendous  fabric  of  Episcopacy.  Here  is  the  cor- 
ner-stone, on  which  rests  the  claims  of  prelates; 
this  the  position  on  which  the  stupendous  and 
mighty  superstructure  has  been  reared. 

Now,  the  only  way  of  ascertaining  whether  this 
claim  be  well  founded,  is  to  appeal  at  once  to  the 
New  Testament.  The  question,  then  is.  Whether 
the  apostles  were  chosen  for  the  distinctive  and  pe- 
culiar work  of  ordaining  to  sacred  offices  1  This 
the  Episcopalian  affirms.  This  we  take  the  liberty 
of  calling  in  question. 

The  Evangelists  have  given  three  separate  and 
full  accounts  of  the  appointment  of  the  apostles. 
One  is  recorded  by  Matthew,  ch.  x. ;  another  by 
Mark,  iii.  12,  etc.;  the  third  by  Luke,  ch.  vi.  They 
were  selected  from  the  other  disciples,  and  set  apart 
to  their  work  with  great  solemnity.  Luke  vi.  The 
act  was  performed  in  the  presence  of  a  great  multi- 
tude, and  after  the  Saviour  had  passed  the  night  in 
prayer  to  God.  Luke  vi.  12.  The  directions  given 
to  them  on  the  occasion  occupy,  in  one  part  of  the 
record,  (Matt.)  the  entire  chapter  of  forty-two  verses. 
Those  directions  are  given  with  very  great  particu- 
larity, embracing  a  great  variety  of  topics,  evidently 
intended  to  guide  them  in  all  their  ministry,  and  to 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CIILRCH.  43 

furnish  them  with  ample  instruction  as  to  the  nature 
of  their  office.  They  refer  to  times  which  would 
follow  the  death  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  were  de- 
signed to  embrace  the  whole  period  of  their  peculiar 
work.     Matt.  x.  17 — 23. 

Now,  on  the  supposition  of  the  Episcopalian, 
that  the  peculiarity  of  their  work  was  to  ordain,  or 
that  "  they  were  distinguished  from  the  elders  be- 
cause they  were  superior  to  them  in  ministerial 
powers  and  rights,"  (p.  15,)  it  cannot  but  be  regard- 
ed as  unaccountable,  that  we  find  not  one  word  of 
this  here.  There  is  not  the  slightest  allusion  to 
any  such  distinguishing  "power  and  rights."  There 
is  nothing  which  can  be  tortured  into  any  such 
claim.  This  is  the  more  remarkable,  as  on  another 
occasion  he  sent  forth  seventy  disciples  at  one  time, 
(Luke  X.  1 — 16,)  usually  regarded  by  Episcopa- 
lians as  the  foundation  of  the  second  order  of  their 
ministers ;  (see  "  the  Scholar  Armed,")  and  there  is 
not  the  slightest  intimation  given,  that  they  were  to 
be  inferior  to  the  apostles  in  the  power  of  ordaining, 
or  superintending  the  churches.  What  explanation 
will  the  Episcopalian  give  of  this  remarkable  omis- 
sion in  the  instructions  of  the  primitive  bishops? 

This  omission  is  not  the  less  remarkable  in  the 
instructions  which  the  Lord  Jesus  gave  to  these 
same  apostles,  after  his  resurrection  from  the  dead. 
At  that  time,  we  should  assuredly  have  expected  an 
intimation  of  the  existence  of  some  such  peculiar 


44  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

power.  But,  not  the  slightest  hint  occurs  of  any 
such  exclusive  authority  and  superintendence.  Mat- 
thew, (xxviii.  18 — 20,)  Mark,  (xvi.  15—18,)  and 
Luke,  (xxiv.  47 — 49,)  have  each  recorded  these 
parting  instructions.  They  have  told  us  that  he 
directed  them  to  remain  in  Jerusalem  (Luke,)  until 
they  were  endued  with  power  from  on  high,  and 
then  to  go  forth,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature :  but  not  a  solitary  syllable  occurs  about 
any  exclusive  power  of  ordination;  about  their 
being  a  peculiar  order  of  ministers;  about  their 
transmitting  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office 
to  others.  What  is  the  explanation  of  this  fact? 
How  is  it  to  be  accounted  for,  if  the  peculiarity  of 
their  office  consisted  in  ^^superiority  of  ministerial 
powers  and  rights,"  that  neither  at  their  election 
and  ordination,  nor  in  the  departing  charge  of  the 
Saviour,  nor  in  any  intermediate  time,  we  ever  hear 
of  it — that  even  the  advocates  for  the  powers  of  the 
bishop  never  pretend  to  adduce  a  solitary  expres- 
sion that  can  be  construed  into  a  reference  to  any 
such  distinction? 

I  proceed  now  to  observe,  that  there  is  not  any 
where  else,  in  the  New  Testament,  a  statement  that 
this  was  the  peculiarity  of  their  apostolic  office. 
Of  this  any  man  may  be  satisfied,  who  will  examine 
the  New  Testament.  Or,  he  may  find  the  proof  in 
a  less  laborious  way,  by  simply  looking  at  the  fact, 
that  neither  Dr.  Onderdonk,  nor  any  of  the  advo- 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  45 

cates  of  Episcopacy  pretend  to  adduce  any  such 
declaration.  The  apostles  often  speak  of  them- 
selves; the  historian  of  their  doings  (Luke,)  often 
mentions  them ;  but  the  place  remains  yet  to  be  de- 
signated, after  this  controversy  has  been  carried  on 
by  keen-sighted  disputants  for  several  hundred 
years,  which  speaks  of  any  such  peculiarity  of 
their  office. 

This  point,  then,  I  shall  consider  as  settled,  and 
shall  feel  at  liberty  to  make  all  the  use  of  it  to 
which  it  can  be  fairly  applied  in  the  argument. 
We  might  here  insist  on  the  strong  presumption 
thus  furnished,  that  this  settles  the  inquiry.  We 
should  be  very  apt  to  regard  it  as  decisive  in  any 
other  case.  If  two  men  go  from  a  government  to  a 
foreign  court,  and  one  of  them  claims  to  be  a  pleni- 
potentiary, and  affirms  that  the  other  is  a  mere 
private  secretary,  or  a  consul,  we  expect  that  the 
claimant  will  sustain  his  pretensions  by  an  appeal 
to  his  commission  or  instructions.  If  he  maintains 
that  this  is  the  peculiarity  of  his  office,  though  he 
may  "  enjoy  all  the  powers  of  the  other  grades," 
(p.  11,)  we  expect  to  find  this  clearly  stated  in  the 
documents  which  he  brings.  If  he  is  mentioned  by 
no  name  that  designates  his  office — as  the  Episco- 
palian admits  the  "  bishop"  is  not — (pp.  12,  13,)  if 
his  commission  contains  no  such  appointment,  and 
if  we  should  learn,  that  specific  instructions  were 
given  to  him  at  his  appointment,  and  again  repeated 
5 


46  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

in  a  solemn  manner  when  he  left  his  native  shores, 
we  should  look  with  strong  suspicions  on  these  re- 
markable claims.  Would  not  any  foreign  court 
decide  at  once  that  such  pretensions,  under  such 
circumstances,  were  utterly  unfounded  1 

Let  us  then  proceed  now  to  inquire  whether  it  is 
possible  to  ascertain  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic 
ofHce,  for  it  must  be  conceded  that  there  was  some- 
thing to  distinguish  the  apostles  from  the  other 
ministers  of  the  New  Testament.  Here,  happily, 
we  are  not  left  in  the  dark.  The  sacred  writers 
themselves  have  given  an  account  which  cannot  be 
easily  mistaken,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  amazement  that 
it  ever  has  been  mistaken.  The  first  account  which 
I  adduce  is  from  the  lips  of  the  Saviour  himself. 
In  those  solemn  moments  when  he  was  about  to 
leave  the  world,  when  the  work  of  atonement  was 
finished,  and  when  he  gave  the  apostles  their  final 
commission,  he  indicated  the  nature  of  their  labours, 
and  the  peculiarity  of  their  office  in  these  words : 
(Luke  xxiv.  46 — 48,)  "  And  said  unto  them.  Thus 
it  is  written,  and  thus  it  behooved  Christ  to  suffer, 
and  to  rise  from  the  dead  the  third  day  t — And  ye 
are  witnesses  of  these  things^  The  object  of 
their  pecuHar  appointment,  which  he  here  specifies, 
was,  that  they  should  be  witnesses  to  all  nations. 
(Comp.  Matt,  xxviii.  18,  19.)  The  "things"  of 
which  they  were  to  bear  witness,  he  mentions  dis- 
tinctly.    They  were  his  sufferings  in  accordance 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  47 

7Ditk  the  'predictions  of  the  prophets:  "thus  it  is 
written,  and  thus  it  behooved  Christ  to  suffer,"  and 
his  resurrection  from  the  dead:  "  and  to  rise  from 
the  dead  the  third  day."  These  were  the  points  to 
bear  "witness"  to  which  they  had  been  selected; 
and  these  were  the  points  on  which  they,  in  fact, 
insisted  in  their  ministry.  See  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  passim. 

I  would  next  remark,  that  this  is  expressly  de- 
clared to  be  the  "  peculiarity"  of  the  apostolic 
office.  It  was  done  so  at  the  election  of  an  apostle 
to  fill  up  the  vacated  place  of  Judas.  Here,  if 
the  peculiar  design  had  been  to  confer  "  superi- 
ority in  ministerial  rights  and  powers,"  we  should 
expect  to  be  favoured  with  some  account  of  it.  It 
was  the  very  time  when  it  would  have  been  natural 
and  proper  to  give  a  statement  of  the  reason  why 
they  filled  up  the  vacancy  in  the  college  of  apostles, 
and  when  they  actually  did  make  such  a  statement. 
Their  words  are  these:  (Acts  i.  21,  22,)  "Where- 
fore, of  those  men  which  have  companied  with  us, 
all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out 
among  us,  beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John, 
unto  that  same  day  when  he  was  taken  up  from  us, 
must  one  be  ordained  to  be  a  witness  WITH  US 
of  his  resurrection.^^  This  passage  I  consider  to  be 
absolutely  decisive  on  the  point  before  us.  It  shows, 
first,  for  what  purpose  they  ordained  him;  and, 
second,  that  they  were  ordained  for  the  same  pur- 


48  OROA.NIZATI0N  AND  GOVERNMENT 

pose.  Why  do  we  hear  nothing  on  this  occasion, 
of  their  "superiority  of  ministerial  rights  and  pow- 
ers?" Why  nothing  of  their  peculiar  prerogative 
to  ordain?  Why  nothing  of  their  "  general  super- 
intendence" of  the  church?  Plainly,  because  they 
had  conceived  of  nothing  of  this  kind  as  entering  into 
their  original  commission  and  the  peculiar  design  of 
their  office.  For  this  purpose  of  bearing  testimony 
to  the  world  of  the  fact  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
Messiah,  they  had  been  originally  selected.  For 
this  they  had  been  prepared,  by  a  long  and  intimate 
acquaintance  with  the  Saviour.  They  had  seen 
him ;  had  been  with  him  in  various  scenes  fitted  to 
instruct  them  more  fully  in  his  designs  and  charac- 
ter; had  enjoyed  an  intimate  personal  friendship 
with  him,  (1  John  i.  1,)  and  were  thus  qualified  to 
go  forth  as  "  witnesses"  of  what  they  had  seen  and 
heard ;  to  confirm  the  great  doctrine  that  the  Messiah 
had  come,  had  died,  and  had  risen,  according  to  the 
predictions  of  the  prophets.  I  just  add  here,  that 
these  truths  were  of  sufficient  importance  to  demand 
the  appointment  of  twelve  honest  men  to  give  them 
confirmation.  It  has  been  shown,  over  and  over 
again,  that  there  was  consummate  wisdom  in  the 
appointment  of  witnesses  enough  to  satisfy  any  rea- 
sonable mind,  and  yet  not  so  many  as  to  give  it  the 
appearance  of  tumult  or  popular  excitement.  The 
truth  of  the  whole  scheme  of  Christianity  rested  on 
making  out  the  fact  that  the  Lord  Jesus  had  risen 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  49 

from  the  dead,  (Comp.  1  Cor.  xv.;)  and  the  im- 
portance of  that  reUgion  to  the  welfare  of  mankind 
demanded  that  this  should  be  substantiated  to  the 
conviction  of  the  world.  Hence  the  anxiety  of  the 
eleven  to  complete  the  number  of  the  original  wit- 
nesses selected  by  the  Saviour,  and  their  care  that 
the  person  chosen  should  have  the  same  acquaint- 
ance with  the  facts  that  they  had  themselves. 

It  is  worthy  also  of  remark,  that  in  the  account 
which  the  historian  gives  of  their  labours,  this  is  the 
main  idea  which  is  presented.  Acts  ii.  32,  "  This 
Jesus  hath  God  raised  up,  whereof  we  ate  witnesses^ 
V.  32.  "  And  we  are  witnesses  of  these  things,"  x. 
39 — 42,  "  And  we  are  witnesses  of  all  things  which 
he  did,  both  in  the  land  of  the  Jews  and  in  Jerusa- 
lem, whom  they  slew  and  hanged  on  a  tree." 
"  Him  God  raised  up  the  third  day,  and  showed  him 
openly;  not  to  all  the  people,  but  unto  witnesses 
chosen  before  of  God,  even  unto  us,  who  did  eat 
and  drink  with  him  after  he  rose  from  the  dead. 
And  he  commanded  us  to  preach  unto  the  people, 
and  to  TESTIFY — aca^uap-r-rpacT^t — that  it  is  he  which 
was  ordained  of  God  to  be  the  judge  of  quick  and 
dead."  In  this  place  we  meet  with  another  explicit 
declaration,  that  this  was  the  object  of  their  original 
appointment.  They  were  "chosen"  for  this,  and 
set  apart  in  the  holy  presence  of  God  to  this  work. 
Why  do  we  not  hear  any  thing  of  "  their  superiority 
in  ministerial  rights  and  powers?"  Why  no  intima- 
5* 


50  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

tion  of  the  power  of  confirming,  and  of  general  su- 
perintendence? I  repeat,  that  it  is  not  possible  to 
answer  these  questions,  except  on  the  supposition, 
that  they  did  not  regard  any  such  powers  as  at  all 
entering  into  the  peculiarity  of  their  commission. 

Having  disposed  of  all  that  is  said  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament of  the  original  design  of  the  appointment  to  the 
apostolic  office,  I  proceed  to  another  and  somewhat 
independent  source  of  evidence.  The  original  number 
of  the  apostles  was  twelve.  The  design  of  their  selec- 
tion we  have  seen.  For  important  purposes,  however, 
it  pleased  God  to  add  to  their  number,  one,  who  had 
not  been  a  personal  attendant  on  the  ministry  of  the 
Saviour,  and  who  was  called  to  the  apostleship  four 
year^  after  his  crucifixion  and  resurrection.  Now 
this  is  a  case,  evidently,  which  must  throw  very  im- 
portant light  on  our  inquiries.  It  is  independent  of 
the  others.  As  he  was  not  a  personal  observer  of 
the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  j  as  he  was  not  an  original 
"  witness"  in  the  case,  we  may  expect  in  the  record 
of  his  appointment,  a  full  account  of  his  "  superiority 
in  ministerial  rights  and  powers."  If  such  superi- 
ority entered  into  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic 
office,  this  was  the  very  case  where  we  should  ex- 
pect to  find  it.  His  conversion  was  subsequent  to 
the  resurrection.  He  was  to  be  employed  exten- 
sively in  founding  and  organizing  churches.  He 
was  to  have  committed  to  his  apostolic  care,  almost 
the  entire  pagan  world.     Comp.  Rom,  xi.  13,  xv. 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  51 

16.  Gal.  ii.  1.  His  very  business  was  one  that 
seined  to  call  for  some  specific  account  of  "superi- 
■prity  in  ministerial  rights,"  if  any  such  rights  were 
involved  in  the  apostolic  office.  How  natural  to 
expect  a  statement  of  such  rights,  and  of  an  account 
of  the  "  general  superintendence"  intrusted  to  him 
as  an  apostle !  Let  us  look,  therefore,  and  see  how 
the  case  stands.  We  have  three  distinct  accounts 
of  the  conversion  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  and  of  his  ap- 
|)ointment  to  the  apostleship,  in  each  of  which  the 
design  of  his  appointment  is  stated.  Acts  xxii.  14, 
15.  In  his  discourse  before  the  Jews,  he  states  the 
charge  given  to  him  by  Ananias  at  Damascus : 
^*  The  God  of  our  fathers  hath  chosen  thee,  that 
thou  shouldst  know  his  will,  and  see  that  Just  One, 
and  shouldst  hear  the  voice  of  his  mouth.  For  thou 
shalt  be  his  witness  unto  all  men  of  what  thou  hast 
seen  and  heard^  Again,  (Acts  xxvi.  16,)  in  his 
speech  before  Agrippa,  Paul  repeats  the  words  ad- 
dressed to  him  by  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  his  original 
commission:  "I  have  appeared  unto  thee /or  this 
purpose,  to  make  thee  a  minister — vnrjphr^v — and  a 
WITNESS,  both  of  those  things  which  thou  hast  seen, 
and  of  those  things  in  the  which  I  will  appear  unto 
thee."  Again,  (Acts  xxiii.  11,)  in  the  account  which 
is  given  of  his  past  and  future  work,  it  is  said:  "As 
-thou  hast  testified  of  me  in  Jerusalem,  so  must  thou 
bear  witness  also  at  Rome." 

This  is  the  account  which  is  given  of  the  call 


52  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

of  Saul  of  Tarsus  to  the  apostolic  office.  But  where 
is  there  a  single  syllable  of  any  "superiority  in  min- 
isterial powers  and  rights,"  as  constituting  the  pe- 
culiarity of  his  office?  We  may  respectfully  ask 
all  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  to  point  to  us  a 
"  light  or  shadow"  of  any  such  Episcopal  invest- 
ment. We  think  their  argument  demands  it.  And 
if  there  is  no  such  account,  neither  in  the  original 
choice  of  the  twelve,  nor  in  the  appointment  of  Mat- 
thias, nor  in  the  selection  of  the  "  apostle  to  the  Gen- 
tiles," it  is  right  to  insist  with  firmness  on  a  satisfac- 
tory explanation  of  the  causes  which  operated  to 
produce  the  omission  of  the  very  gist  of  their  office, 
according  to  Episcopacy.  Some  reasons  should  be 
suggested,  prudential  or  otherwise,  which  made  it 
proper  to  pass  over  the  very  vitality  of  the  original 
commission. 

But  we  have  not  done  with  the  Apostle  Paul. 
He  is  too  important  a  "  witness"  for  us,  as  well  as 
for  the  purpose  for  which  he  was  appointed,  to  be 
dismissed  without  further  attention.  It  has  been 
remarked  already,  that  he  was  not  a  personal  fol- 
lower of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  was  not  present  at 
his  death  and  ascension.  It  may  be  asked,  then, 
how  could  he  be  a  "witness,"  in  the  sense,  and  for 
the  purposes  already  described?  Let  us  see  how 
this  was  provided  for.  I  transcribe  the  account 
from  his  own  statement  of  the  address  made  to  him 
by  Ananias.     Acts  xxii.  14.    "The  God  of  our  fa- 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  53 

thers  hath  chosen  thee,  that  thou  shouldst  know  his 
will,  and  see  that  Just  one,  and  shouldst  hear  the 
words  of  his  mouth."  That  he  had  thus  seen  him, 
it  is  not  necessary  to  prove.  See  1  Cor.  xv.  8; 
Acts  ix.  5,  17.  The  inference  which  I  here  draw 
is,  tliat  he  was  permitted  to  see  the  Lord  Jesus  in  an 
extraordinary  manner,  for  the  express  purpose  of 
qualifying  him  to  be  invested  with  the  peculiarity  of 
the  apostleship.  This  inference,  sufficiently  clear 
from  the  very  statement,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  put 
beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt. 

Let  us  turn,  then,  to  another  account  which  Paul 
has  given  of  his  call  to  the  apostleship,  1  Cor.  ix.  1, 
2:  "Am  I  not  an  apostle?  Am  I  not  free?  Have 
I  not  seen  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  ?"  I  adduce  this 
passage  as  proof,  that  to  have  seen  Jesus  Christ 
was  considered  as  an  indispensable  qualification  for 
the  apostleship.  So  Paul  regarded  it  in  his  own 
case.  It  is  adduced  also  for  another  purpose,  viz.: 
to  strengthen  my  main  position,  that  the  apostles 
were  designated  to  their  office  specifically  as  wit- 
nesses to  the  character  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 
If  this  was  not  the  design,  why  does  Paul  appeal  to 
the  fact  that  he  had  seen  the  Saviour,  as  proof  that 
he  was  qualified  to  be  an  apostle?  And  we  may 
further  ask,  with  emphasis,  If  the  apostles,  as  Epis- 
copalians pretend,  did,  in  virtue  of  their  office,  pos- 
sess "  superiority  in  ministerial  powers  and  rights," 
why  did  not  Paul  once  hint  at  the  fact  in  this  pas- 


54  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

sage?  His  express  object  was  to  vindicate  his  claim 
to  the  apostleship.  In  doing  this,  he  appeals  to  that 
which  we  maintain  to  have  constituted  the  peculiar- 
ity of  the  office — his  being  '■^witness'''  to  the  Saviour. 
In  this  instance  we  have  a  circumstance,  of  which 
Paley  would  make  much  in  an  argument,  if  it  fell  in 
with  the  design  of  the  "  Horse  Paulines."  We  claim 
the  privilege  of  making  as  much  of  it,  upon  the 
question,  whether  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic 
office  was  "  superiority  of  ministerial  powers  and 
rights." 

We  have  now  examined  all  the  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture which  state  the  design  of  the  apostleship.  It 
has  been  shown,  if  I  mistake  not,  that  the  ground 
of  the  distinction  between  the  "  apostles  and  elders," 
"  the  apostles,  and.  elders,  and  brethren,"  was  not 
that  the  former  had  superiority  of  "  ministerial 
powers  and  rights."  We  might  leave  the  argument 
here;  for  if  Episcopalians  cannot  make  out  this 
point  to  entire  satisfaction,  all  that  is  said  about  suc- 
cessors in  the  apostolic  office,  and  about  perpetu- 
ating the  apostleship,  must  be  nugatory,  and  vain. 
But  we  have  an  independent  topic  of  remark  here, 
and  one  which  bears  on  the  subject,  therefore,  with 
all  the  force  of  a  cumulative  argument.  To  the  con- 
sideration of  this,  we  are  led  by  the  next  position  of 
Dr.  Onderdonk.  This  is  stated  in  the  following 
words :  that  "  there  was  continued,  as  had  begun  in 
the  apostles,  an  order  of  ministers  superior  to  the 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  55 

elders,"  p.  16.  This  he  attempts  to  prove,  on  the 
ground  that  "  there  is  no  Scriptural  evidence  that 
mere  elders  (presbyters)  ordained,"  (pp.  16 — 23,) 
and  that  "  the  above  distinction  between  elders  and 
a  grade  superior  to  them,  in  regard  especially  to  the 
power  of  ordaining,  was  so  persevered  in  as  to  indi- 
cate that  it  was  a  permanent  arrangement,  and  not 
designed  to  be  but  temporary."  pp.  23,  24. 

In  the  inquiry,  then,  whether  this  distinction  was 
continued  or  persevered  in,  we  might  insist  on  what 
has  been  already  shown,  as  decisive.  If  the  original 
distinction  was  what  it  has  been  shown  to  be,  it 
could  not  be  persevered  in,  without  (as  in  the  case 
of  Paul)  a  personal,  direct  manifestation  of  the  as- 
cended Saviour,  to  qualify  every  future  incumbent 
in  the  apostleship.  1  Cor.  ix.  1.  No  modern 
"  bishop,"  it  is  presumed,  will  lay  claim  to  this. 
The  very  supposition  that  any  such  revelation  was 
necessary,  would  dethrone  every  prelate,  and  pros- 
trate every  mitre  in  Christendom. 

But  we  have,  as  before  remarked,  an  independent 
train  of  arguments  on  this  point.  It  is  evident  that 
the  whole  burden  of  proof  here  lies  on  the  Episco- 
palian. He  maintains  that  such  an  original  dis- 
tinction existed,  and  that  it  was  perpetuated.  Both 
these  positions  we  deny.  The  first  has  been  shown 
to  be  unfounded,  and  has  thus  virtually  destroyed 
the  other.  Let  us  proceed,  however,  to  the  com- 
paratively needless  task  of  showing  that  the  posi- 


56  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

tion,  that  there  was  an  arrangement  by  which  an 
order  of  men  '^  superior  to  the  elders"  was  con- 
tinued in  the  church,  is  equally  unfounded. 

The  argument  in  support  of  the  position  that  there 
was  to  be  an  order  of  men  of  substantially  the  same 
rank  as  the  apostles,  and  superior  to  another  grade 
of  ministers  in  the  church,  can  be  made  out  only  by 
substantiating  one  or  both  of  the  following  positions, 
either  (1)  that  it  is  expressly  stated  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, that  the  "  order"  was  continued,  or  was  to 
be  continued ;  or  (2)  by  an  induction  of  particulars, 
showing  that  though  there  was  no  formal  atatement 
on  this  point,  yet  that  the  order  was,  in  fact,  con- 
tinued. Either  of  them,  I  admit,  would  settle  the 
question  in  favour  of  Episcopacy ;  if  both  fail,  then 
it  is  equally  clear  that  the  claim  is  unfounded.  It 
is  proposed  to  examine  both  these  points  by  the  New 
Testament. 

First,  then,  there  is  no  express  statement  in  the 
New  Testament,  that  such  a  "  superior"  order  of 
ministers  was  to  be  "  continued"  in  the  church,  or 
that  the  apostles  were  to  have  "  successors"  in  the 
peculiarity  of  their  office.  This  point  is  so  clear, 
that  even  Episcopalians  do  not  pretend  to  it.  There 
is  nothing  to  which  they  refer  as  conveying  this 
idea.  Neither  in  the  instructions  of  the  Saviour 
himself  when  he  called  them  to  their  office,  nor,  in 
any  declaration  which  fell  from  his  lips  during  his 
ministry,  nor  in  any  thing  that  the  apostles  them- 


OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  57 

selves  said,  either  before  or  subsequent  to  the  resur- 
rection of  the  Saviour,  is  it  declared  that  the  pecu- 
liarity of  the  apostolic  office  was  to  be  continued 
by  a  "  succession"  of  men,  extending  into  future 
times.  This  assertion  is  made  with  entire  confidence, 
and  it  is  not,  and  cannot  be  denied  by  the  advocates  of 
Episcopacy.  The  only  declaration  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament that  has  any  resemblance  to  any  such  posi- 
tion, or  that  is  ever  even  remotely  referred  to  by 
Episcopalians  on  this  point,  is  the  promise  of  the 
Saviour  in  Matth.  xxviii.  20,  "  Lo  I  am  with  you 
alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  But  as- 
suredly this  passage  will  not  demonstrate  that  the 
peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office  was  to  be  perpetu- 
ated, or  that  they  were  to  have  successors  in  it,  or 
that  there  was  to  be  an  order  of  men  continued  in 
the  church  superior  in  rank  and  power  to  a  certain 
other  order  of  men.  It  does  not  prove  this  for  the 
following  reasons.  (1.)  There  is  no  declaration  in 
this  promise  express  or  implied,  that  the  peculiarity 
of  their  office  was  to  be  continued.  That  certainly  is 
not  the  point  of  the  promise,  whatever  may  be  its  real 
import.  The  point  of  the  promise  is  the  presence  of 
the  Saviour  to  the  end  of  time  with  those  who  were 
to  go  and  preach  the  gospel.  (2.)  There  is  no  allu- 
sion to  any  such  fact  as  that  they  were  to  be  "  su- 
perior" to  another  order  of  men,  or  that  an  order  of 
men  superior  to  others  was  to  be  continued  in  the 
church.  No  mention  is  made  of  any  such  "  orders" 
6 


68  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

of  men ;  there  is  no  intimation  that  there  would  be. 
(3.)  The  promise  is  one  that  is  adapted  to  all 
authorized  preachers  of  the  gospel,  whatever  rank 
or  order  they  may  sustain.  According  to  the  Sa- 
viour's commission,  the  promise  extends  to  all  those 
who  should  be  called  by  him  and  commissioned  to 
go  and  "teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  It  was  to  such  persons  that  the  promise 
of  his  presence  was  made  by  the  Saviour,  and 
wherever  any  have  evidence  that  they  are  author- 
ized by  him  to  engage  in  that  work,  they  have  a 
right  to  apply  this  promise  to  themselves.  But  is 
this  work  to  be  confined  to  prelates,  the  pretended 
"  successors"  of  the  apostles  ?  Are  no  others  au- 
thorized to  go  and  disciple  the  nations ;  to  baptize 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  and  to  teach  them 
to  observe  the  commandments  of  God  ?  Assuredly 
this  will  not  be  pretended,  for  no  Episcopalian  ever 
supposed  that  "  bishops"  only  were  authorized  to 
become  missionaries  to  the  heathen. 

But  if  this  text  will  not  support  the  pretensions  to 
a  succession  of  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office, 
which  it  neither  expresses  nor  implies,  then  there  is 
no  express  declaration  in  the  New  Testament,  that 
an  order  of  men  was  to  be  "  continued"  in  the 
ministry  "  superior"  to  another  order.  And  if  this 
be  so,  we  have  here  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
facts  that  has  ever  occurred  in  the  institution  of  any 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  59 

office  whatever ;  a  fact  of  so  remarkable  a  character 
as  to  render  it  incredible  that  it  should  ever  have 
occurred.  A  brief  glance  at  the  circumstances  of 
the  case  will  illustrate  this.     They  are  these : 

According  to  the  belief  of  Episcopalians,  this 
"  order"  of  the  ministry  was  to  continue  for  ever. 
It  was  intended  by  the  Saviour  that  at  no  time 
should  the  church  be  without  an  order  of  men  who 
should  be  properly  the  '  successors  of  the  apostles.' 

According  to  their  belief  that  arrangement  was 
to  take  place  in  all  lands  where  the  gospel  was 
preached.  No  matter  what  might  be  the  form  of 
civil  government  there  prevailing — whether  a  repub- 
lic, a  democracy,  an  aristocracy,  or  a  monarchy, 
there  was  to  be  but  one  form  in  which  the  church  was 
to  be  organized — and  in  every  land  there  was  to  be 
an  order  in  the  ministry  who  should  be  properly  the 
*  successors  of  the  apostles.' 

According  to  their  belief,  the  correct  organization 
of  the  whole  church  was  dependent  on  the  observance 
of  the  distinction  between  this  "  superior  grade"  and 
an  inferior  grade  in  the  ministry,  and  there  could 
be  in  fact  no  properly  organized  church  unless  there 
was  an  order  of  men  who  should  be  properly  '  the 
successors  of  the  apostles.' 

According  to  their  belief,  the  validity  of  all  ordi- 
nations every  where  depended  on  this,  and  no  one 
could  be  authorized  to  preach  the  gospel  unless  there 


60         ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

had  been  laid  on  him  the  hands  of  those  who  were 
properly  the  '  successors  of  the  apostles.' 

According  to  their  belief,  the  validity  of  all  sacra- 
ments depended  on  this,  and  no  one  could  properly 
administer  the  rite  of  baptism  or  the  Lord's  supper 
unless  he  had  derived  his  authority  from  those  who 
were  properly  '  the  successors  of  the  apostles.' 

According  to  their  belief,  the  proper  government 
of  the  church  every  where  depended  on  this,  and 
none  would  have  a  right  to  administer  discipline 
■except  those  who  were  properly  the  '  successors  of 
the  apostles.' 

According  to  their  belief,  if  these  things  are  not 
so,  and  if  there  was  no  such  "  succession"  of  men 
in  the  church,  the  churches  are  unauthorized  assem- 
blies ;  without  a  valid  ministry ;  with  no  sacraments 
properly  administered ;  with  none  empowered  by  the 
great  head  of  the  church  to  proclaim  salvation,  to 
offer  pardon,  to  minister  consolation,  or  to  bury  the 
dead. 

With  these  consequences  full  in  view,  we  turn 
then  to  the  original  commission  of  these  men  whose 
^'  successors"  were  to  be  intrusted  with  so  much 
power,  and  the  continuation  of  whose  office  was  to 
involve  the  destiny  of  countless  millions  of  mankind. 
We  go  and  listen  to  the  Saviour  when  he  called 
them  on  the  banks  of  Gennesareth.  We  examine  all 
the  instructions  that  he  gave  them  in  three  years  of 
his  most  faithful  ministry.     We  listen  to  his  voice 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  61 

when  he  was  about  to  ascend  to  heaven,  and  when 
he  gave  them  his  parting  counsel  and  issued  his 
great  commission.  Strange  to  tell,  in  all  this,  not 
one  word  do  we  hear  of  any  such  tremendous  results 
depending  on  the  fact  that  there  were  to  be  those 
who  should  be  "  successors"  in  the  peculiarities  of 
their  office,  nor  is  there  even  a  hint  that  it  was  to 
to  be  so. 

We  turn  then  to  another  fact — a  fact  which  must 
have  been  before  the  eyes  of  the  Redeemer.  It  is 
the  arrangement  made  in  regard  to  the  priestly 
office  in  the  Old  Testament.  There  every  thing  was 
arranged  in  the  most  exact  manner.  There  is  no 
ambiguity.  There  is  no  reason  for  doubting  that 
Moses  intended  that  the  ministry  which  he  insti- 
tuted should  be  arranged  in  three  orders,  or  that  it 
was  designed  that  there  should  be  a  "  successor"  to 
the  one  of  "  superior  order" — the  High  Priest. 
Every  thing  relating  to  that  officer  and  to  the  "  suc- 
cession," is  specified  with  the  utmost  particularity, 
and  the  arrangement  entered  into  the  essential  struc- 
ture of  the  constitution  of  the  Jewish  common- 
wealth. Can  any  one  believe  that  the  Saviour  in- 
tended that  there  should  be  similar  distinctions  in 
his  church,  essential  to  its  very  existence,  and  yet 
not  a  single  word  in  regard  to  it  in  his  own  state- 
ments of  the  nature  of  the  ministry?  They  may 
explain  this  who  can ;  but  if  such  results  were  to  be 
dependent  on  the  fact,  that  an  order  of  men  was  to 
6* 


62  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

be  continued  in  the  church,  who  should  be  the  "  suc- 
cessors" of  the  apostles  in  the  peculiarity  of  their 
office,  and  yet  not  one  word  of  this  ever  occurred  in 
the  account  of  its  organization,  then  the  church  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  is  the  most  singularly  organized  body 
that  ever  pretended  to  have  a  constitution. 

Leaving  this  matter  to  be  explained  by  Epis- 
copalians as  it  may  be — a  work  which  remains  yet 
to  be  attempted — the  fact  is  all  that  is  of  essential 
importance  to  us  now.  That  fact  is,  that  there  is 
no  intimation  in  the  instructions  or  counsels  of  the 
Saviour,  that  he  ever  designed  that  the  peculiarity 
of  the  apostolic  office  should  be  transmitted  to  a  body 
of  men  who  should  be  their  "  successors." 

The  second  point  of  the  inquiry  then  is,  whether 
the  recorded  facts  in  the  doings  of  the  apostles  them- 
selves are  such  as  to  show  that  this  was  intended. 
It  is  certainly  undeniable  that  it  might  be  so. 
Though  there  were  not  in  the  original  commission 
of  the  apostles  themselves,  or  in  any  declaration  of 
the  Saviour,  an  express  statement  that  this  order 
of  men  was  to  be  continued  in  a  regular  "  succes- 
sion," yet  it  must  be  admitted  that  such  might 
have  been  the  organization  of  the  church  under 
them,  and  such  their  uniform  practice,  as  to  show 
that  this  regular  succession  was  contemplated,  and 
is  still  indispensable  to  the  existence  of  the  church. 
It  is  conceivable  that  in  every  case  where  a  va- 
cancy occurred    in    the    apostolic    college,    they 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  63 

should  forthwith  ordain  a  "  successor ;"  or  that  they 
should,  in  some  sufficiently  intelligible  and  formal 
way,  appoint  men  over  others,  with  the  powers 
and  functions  of  their  own  office;  or  that,  having 
ordained  certain  men  to  the  ministry,  they  should 
uniformly  address  them  as  apostles,  and  as  invested 
with  the  functions  of  the  apostolic  office ;  or  that, 
in  every  country  where  churches  were  organised  in 
sufficient  number,  they  should  constitute  some  one 
with  the  right  of  confirmation,  and  with  the  general 
charge  of  governing  the  churches,  and  with  instruc- 
tions to  transmit  his  peculiar  authority  to  some 
"  successor"  of  the  same  rank.  In  either  of  these 
cases  it  is  admitted,  that  there  would  be  a  sufficient 
indication  that  the  church  was  to  be  constituted  and 
governed  in  this  manner — however  we  might  ex- 
plain the  want  of  any  such  statement  in  the  original 
commission.  The  defect  in  the  original  commission 
would  be  practically  supplied,  and  the  authority  for 
the  superior  "  apostolic"  order  in  the  church  could 
not,  with  propriety,  be  called  in  question.  The  ad- 
vocates for  Episcopacy,  conceding  the  want  of  the 
express  statement  in  the  original  commission  on  this 
point,  suppose  that  they  find  evidence  of  such  an 
arrangement  in  the  subsequent  organization  of  the 
church ;  or  such  evidences  that  the  apostles  intended 
that  their  own  "  order"  or  rank  in  the  ministry 
should  be  ^ntinued  as  to  amount  to  a  proof  that 
this  was  the  intention  of  the  Saviour.     That  evi- 


64  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

dence  is  found,  they  think,  not  in  any  express  de- 
claration of  the  apostles  themselves,  but  in  such 
supposed  acts  as  to  show  that  there  was  the  same 
authority  transmitted  which  they  had,  as  apostles, 
and  that  this  was  to  be  a  permanent  arrangement. 
The  evidence  consists  in  the  fact,  that  certain  indi- 
viduals are  mentioned  with  such  appellations,  and 
designated  to  perform  such  offices,  as  to  show 
that  they  belonged  to  an  order  of  the  clergy  "  su- 
perior" to  the  presbyters,  and  were  in  the  same 
rank  as  the  apostles.  To  examine  this  claim,  there- 
fore, is  essential  to  a  correct  understanding  of  the 
subject,  and  this  examination  will  settle  the  question. 
This  must  be  done  by  an  investigation  of  the  cases 
of  the  particular  individuals  who  are  claimed  to  be 
the  successors  of  the  apostles.  It  is  proposed  to 
take  up  these  cases  in  the  order  in  which  they  are 
usually  presented  by  Episcopalians,  and  to  inquire. 
What  is  the  evidence  that  they  succeeded  the  apos- 
tles in  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office,  so  as 
to  show  that  it  was  intended  that  this  should  be  a 
permanent  arrangement  in  the  church  ? 

The  first  case  is  that  of  Matthias,  Acts  i.  15 — 26. 
The  argument  which  is  relied  on  in  his  case  is,  that 
one  of  the  first  acts  of  the  apostles,  after  they  re- 
ceived the  apostolic  office,  was  to  "transfer  the  very 
same  power  which  they  had  received  from  Christ." 
(Bishop  M'Coskry ;)  and  that  Matthias  was  so  se- 
lected, and  such  power  conferred  on  him,  as  to 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  65 

prove  that  he  was  to  be  ranked  among  the  apostles, 
and  to  indicate  that  this  was  to  be  a  permanent  ar- 
rangement. It  is  supposed  to  be  the  first  step  in  the 
doings  of  the  apostles  indicating  that  their  order 
was  to  be  continued  in  the  churches,  and  that  it  was 
not  to  be  allowed  to  become  extinct  by  the  death  of 
those  sustaining  the  office. 

Now,  in  regard  to  the  case  of  Matthias,  the  fol- 
lowing remarks  will  show  the  bearing  of  this  ex- 
ample on  the  argument. 

1.  He  was  undoubtedly  chosen  to  be  an  apostle 
in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word.  This  is  implied 
in  the  whole  transaction,  and  is  indeed  expressly 
affirmed.  Peter  states,  in  his  argument  for  gouig 
into  the  election,  that  one  of  their  number  had  com- 
mitted suicide,  and  that  it  was  proper  that  his  place 
should  be  supplied  by  an  election.  The  propriety 
of  this  he  argues  by  a  quotation  from  Psalm  Ixix. 
25.  "  Let  his  habitation  be  desolate,  and  let  no 
man  dwell  therein ;  and  his  bishoprick  let  another 
take ;"  that  is,  let  his  office,  or  charge, — irtioxortriv — 
be  conferred  on  another.  The  word  is  applied  to 
any  oversight  or  care  of  a  thing,  and  in  the  New 
Testament  refers  to  having  the  care  or  oversight  of 
the  church,  without  reference  to  any  particular 
rank  in  doing  it.  See  Acts  xx.  28.  Phil.  i.  1, 
where  it  is  applied  to  presbyters.  On  the  ground 
of  this  ancient  prediction,  Peter  argued  that  it  was 
necessary  and  proper  to  elect  one  with  suitable  qua- 


66  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

lifications  to  fill  the  exact  office  with  which  Judas 
had  been  invested,  or  to  accomplish  what  he  was 
chosen  to  accomplish  as  an  apostle.  That  it  was 
understood  that  he  was  to  be  an  apostle,  with 
the  rank,  title,  and  prerogatives  of  an  apostle, 
seems  to  be  clear.  He  was  to  be  in  the  office  what 
Judas  would  have  been  if  he  had  not,  by  transgres- 
sion, fallen.  Accordingly  it  is  expressly  stated,  that 
*'  he  was  numbered  with  the  eleven  apostles,"  (Acts 
i.  26,)  and  the  apostles  are  twice  referred  to  after- 
wards, in  their  collective  capacity,  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  lead  to  the  supposition  that  Matthias  was  with 
them.  Thus  it  is  said,  (Acts  ii.  14,)  "But  Peter 
standing  up  with  the  eleven  lifted  up  his  voice ;"  and 
in  Acts  vi.  2,  "  Then  the  twelve  called  the  multitude 
of  the  disciples  unto  them,"  implying  that  at  that 
time  Matthias  was  recognized  as  one  of  the  number 
of  the  apostles,  or  that  the  apostolic  college  was  full. 
2.  I  am  willing  to  admit,  that  all  this  was  done 
under  the  full  influence  of  inspiration,  and  by  the 
sanction  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  true  that  the 
presence  of  the  other  ten  apostles  on  the  occasion 
is  not  mentioned ;  that  the  question  was  submitted, 
not  particularly  to  them,  but  to  the  whole  of  the  as- 
sembled church,  (Acts  i.  15,)  that  probably  the 
whole  church  acted  in  the  selection  of  the  successor 
of  Judas,  and  voted  on  the  occasion,  (See  Acts  i. 
15,  comp.  vs.  23,  26,)  and  that  Peter  seems  to  have 
been  led  to  the  conclusion  that  such  an  election  was 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  67 

proper  by  a  course  of  reasoning  on  the  declaration 
in  the  Ixixth  Psahii,  but  I  see  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
he  acted  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  the  Great 
Head  of  the  Church,  and  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  This  would  seem  to  be  fairly  implied 
in  the  general  promises  which  the  Redeemer  made 
to  the  apostles  in  regard  to  the  organization  of  the 
church.  John  xiv.  26.  Matt.  xvi.  19.  xviii.  18. 
Whatever  inferences  may  follow  from  this  fact, 
it  should  be  cheerfully  conceded. 

But,  if  these  points  are  conceded,  the  question 
then  is,  What  is  the  exact  bearing  of  this  case  on 
the  question,  whether  it  was  intended  that  the  ar- 
rangement should  be  "  permanent"  in  the  church, 
and  that  there  should  be  a  regular  "  succession"  of 
men  invested  with  the  functions  of  those  who  sus- 
tained the  apostolic  office  ?  It  is  important,  then, 
to  look  at  this  case  just  as  it  is  presented  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  the  following  facts  which,  no 
one  will  dispute,  comprise  all  that  is  said  in  regard 
to  it,  and  embrace  all  that  can  be  construed  into  an 
argument  in  regard  to  the  succession. 

(1.)  It  was  an  election  to  a  vacancy ,  not  to  a 
succession  in  the  office.  The  reason  which  Peter 
gives  for  the  election  at  all  is  that  it  was  proper 
because  a  vacancy  had  occurred  by  the  death  of 
Judas,  not  because  it  was  necessary  to  keep  up  the 
"  succession.''^  One  had  been  removed  who  had 
been  chosen  to  fill  a  specific  place,  and  to  accom- 


68  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT  * 

plish  a  particular  object,  and  it  was  important  that 
his  place  should  be  filled.  If  it  were  possible  to 
perpetuate  the  apostolic  office  in  its  peculiarity — as 
we  have  seen  that  it  is  not — this  reasoning  of  Peter 
would  be  forcible  to  demonstrate  that  the  number 
twelve  was  to  be  continued,  and  that  when  a  va- 
cancy occurred  it  was  to  be  supplied  by  election, 
but  it  is  of  no  force  whatever  to  demonstrate  that 
there  must  be  a  "  succession"  of  an  unlimited  num- 
ber, and  that  the  office  was  to  be  transmitted  by 
embracing  hundreds  or  thousands  in  the  "  apostolic 
college"  in  every  successive  age.  The  argument 
of  Peter  is,  that  Judas  was  "  numbered  with  them, 
and  had  obtained  part  in  the  same  ministry"  with 
them ;  that  he  had  fallen  from  this  office,  and  that 
it  was  predicted  that  another  should  take  "  his" 
place ;  and  that,  such  being  the  case,  it  was  proper 
to  appoint  another,  having  the  proper  qualifications, 
who  might  be,  as  Judas  would  'have  been  had  he 
lived,  a  "  witness  of  the  resurrection"  of  the  Sa- 
viour. In  all  this  there  is  not  one  word  about  a 
"  succession ;"  not  an  intimation  that  it  was  to  be 
a  permanent  arrangement ;  not  a  hint  that  the  ori- 
ginal number  was  ever  to  be  enlarged  or  to  have 
any  other  qualifications  than  the  original  apostles 
had — that  which  made  them  competent  to  bear  wit- 
ness of  the  resurrection  of  the  Saviour.  There  is 
all  the  difference  imaginable  between  the  power 
to  Jill  a  vacancy  in   an  office  and  a  power  to 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  G9 

perpetvate  an  order  of  men — and  especially  if  that 
"  order"  is  to  be  indefinitely  enlarged. 

(2.)  It  was  an  election  by  the  church,  and  not 
particularly  by  the  apostles.  Indeed  it  is  only  from 
the  probability  that  the  apostles  would  be  present  on 
such  an  occasion  that  there  is  any  reason  to  believe 
that  they  were  there,  for  they  are  not  mentioned. 
The  address  of  Peter  was  made  to  the  "  disciples" 
who  are  said  to  have  been  "  about  an  hundred  and 
twenty,"  (Acts  i.  15,)  and  it  is  manifest,  from  the 
narrative,  that  the  votes  in  the  case  were  given  by 
them.  No  intimation  is  furnished  that  any  others, 
voted  than  those  before  whom  the  proposition  of 
Peter  was  made ;  and  it  is  morally  certain,  that  if 
the  vote  had  been  given  only  by  the  apostles,  such 
a  fact  would  have  been  stated.  This  account  shows 
that  the  apostles  did  not  mean  of  themselves  to  ap- 
point successors ;  but  so  far  as  it  goes,  it  shows  that 
the  selection  was  made  by  the  body  of  the  commu- 
nicants in  the  church.  If  they  had  been  entrusted 
with  a  special  commission  to  continue  their  "  pecu- 
liar order,"  and  to  "  transfer  their  authority,"  as  a 
permanent  arrangement,  it  is  scarcely  credible  that 
the  execution  of  this  should  have  been  left  to  the 
body  of  communicants.  At  all  events,  this  has 
much  more  of  a  democratic  aspect  than  is  found 
now  in  Episcopacy.  In  the  whole  of  the  speech  of 
Peter,  he  never  breathes  a  note  of  either  himself  or 
his  fellow-apostles  conferring  apostolic  power  on 
7 


70  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

Matthias,  or  on  any  one  else.  He  submitted  the 
nomination  in  the  most  anti-Episcopal  manner  to 
the  whole  of  the  disciples,  and  then  referred  the 
final  decision  to  the  Lord.  "  They  appointed  two, 
Joseph  called  Barsabas,  who  was  surnamed  Justus, 
and  Matthias."  The  fair  and  obvious  construction 
of  this  is,  that  it  was  done  by  the  "  hundred  and 
twenty  disciples,"  to  whom  Peter  had  submitted  the 
proposition  respecting  the  necessity  of  electing  one 
to  fill  the  vacancy. 

(3.)  The  purpose  for  which  Matthias  was  chosen 
is  specifically  mentioned.  It  was  to  be,  in  the  pro- 
per sense  of  the  word,  as  explained  above,  an 
apostle — a  '■'■  witness'^  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
Saviour.  "  Wherefore,  of  these  men  which  have 
companied  with  us  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus 
went  in  and  out  among  us — must  one  he  ordained 
TO  BE  A  WITNESS  With  US  of  Iiis  resurrecHon."  vs. 
21,  22.  Here  the  same  object  is  referred  to  which 
is  specified  by  the  Saviour  as  implied  in  the  nature 
of  the  apostohc  office — to  be  his  witnesses  to  the 
world.  In  order  to  divest  this  of  all  doubt  as  to 
what  was  intended  in  the  case,  Peter  specifies  all 
the  qualification  which  was  necessary  in  the  elec- 
tion. He  who  was  to  be  chosen  was  to  have  just 
such  qualification  as  to  fit  him  to  be  a  competent 
"  witness^''  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Saviour.  In 
order  to  that  it  was  indispensable  that  he  should 
have  been  with  him;  that  he  should  have  been 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  71 

familiar  with  his  person  and  his  instructions,  that 
he  might  thus  be  quaUfied  to  bear  witness  to  his 
identity  after  his  resurrection.  Accordingly  Peter 
says  that  it  was  necessary  that  he  should  have 
been  with  them  "  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus 
went  in  and  out  among  them  ;"  that  '  his  acquaint- 
ance with  him  should  have  commenced  at  the  time 
that  he  was  baptized  by  John,  and  continued  to 
the  very  day  when  he  was  taken  up  from  them' — 
thus  embracing  the  entire  period  of  his  public  mi- 
nistry, his  crucifixion,  and  the  forty  days  in  which 
he  appeared  to  his  disciples  after  his  resurrection. 
It  was  to  bear  witness  to  these  things,  as  we  have 
seen,  that  the  apostles  were  originally  chosen  ;  and 
it  was  for  this  specific  purpose  that  Matthias  was 
selected  in  the  room  of  one  who  would  have  been 
abundantly  qualified  for  this  had  he  lived.  In  all 
that  Peter  says  on  this  subject  there  is  not  an  inti- 
mation of  the  necessity  of  any  other  qualification 
than  this ;  there  is  no  hint  that  he  ought  to  be  en- 
dowed with  uncommon  talents,  eloquence  or  learn- 
ing ;  there  is  no  allusion  to  any  power,  control,  or 
jurisdiction  that  he  was  to  exercise  over  the  churches ; 
there  is  no  suggestion  that  he  was  to  perform  the 
ceremony  of  "  confirmation,"  or  that  he  was  to 
take  the  jurisdiction  over  a  particular  district  or 
"  diocese ;"  nor  is  there  any  allusion  to  any  such 
fact  as  that  he  was  to  transmit  his  power  and  au- 
thority  to    his   "  successors."     The   purpose   was 


72  ORGANIZA.TION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

specific ;  it  was  just  that  for  which  all  the  apostles 
had  been  called  by  the  Saviour. 

These  are  the  simple  facts  in  regard  to  the  elec- 
tion of  Matthias.  It  is  to  be  remembered  now  that 
this  is  the  only  case  of  an  election  to  the  apostolic 
office  recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  The  only 
other  apostle,  respecting  whose  authority  and  rank 
there  is  no  dispute,  was  Paul.  He  was  called  di- 
rectly from  heaven,  without  any  arrangement,  elec- 
tion, designation,  or  ordination,  by  the  other  apos- 
tles ;  and  he  was  qualified  for  the  peculiarity  of  the 
apostolic  office  by  having  been  permitted,  in  a  mi- 
raculous manner,  to  see  the  Saviour  after  his  resur- 
rection. *'Am  I  not  an  apostle?  Have  I  not  seen 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord?"  1  Cor.  ix.  1.  When 
James,  the  brother  of  John,  was  put  to  death  by 
Herod,  (Acts  xii.  1,)  there  was  no  election  to  supply 
his  place,  nor  is  there  any  mention  that  as  the 
apostles  died  their  places  were  supplied.  The  pur- 
pose of  the  original  appointment  of  twelve — a  com- 
petent number  to  establish  the  important  truth  of  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus — had  been  accomplished  when 
they  died,  and  it  was  alike  useless  and  impossible  to 
continue  the  succession : — useless  because  the  twelve 
had  testified  to  the  world  the  fact  of  his  resurrection 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  secure  the  permanent  es- 
tablishment of  the  Christian  religion;  and  impossible 
because  the  original  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  Redeemer  died.   How  could  an  order  of  men  be 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  73 

kept  up  in  the  world,  from  age  to  age,  qualified  to 
be  "witnesses"  of  his  resurrection?  It  is  left  then 
to  the  judgement  of  all,  to  determine  with  what  pro- 
priety the  case  of  Matthias  is  referred  to  as  an  evi- 
dence that  it  was  designed  that  there  should  be  a 
permanent  arrangement  in  the  church  to  perpetuate 
the  apostolic  office,  or  to  continue  the  appointment 
of  an  order  of  men  of  "  superior  qualifications  and 
rank"  in  the  ministry.  If  the  very  first  link  fails 
all  the  others  will  be  likely  to  fail  also. 

The  next  case  on  which  reliance  is  placed  by  the 
advocates  of  Episcopacy  is  that  of  Barnabas.  The 
argument  in  support  of  his  claims  to  the  apostleship 
is  based  mainly  on  the  fact  that  the  name  apostle  is 
given  to  him,  Acts  xiv.  14.  "Which  when  the 
Apostles  Barnabas  and  Paul  heard  of,  they  rent 
their  clothes."  See  the  Tract  "  Episcopacy  tested 
by  Scripture,"  p.  18,  and  Bishop  McCoskry's  Ser- 
mon, p.  24.  In  connection  with  the  fact  that  the 
rtxime  apostle  is  given  to  Barnabas,  it  is  urged  by 
the  author  of  the  "Tract,"  that  the  transaction  re- 
corded in  Acts  xiii,  by  which  Paul  and  Barnabas 
were  designated  to  a  particular  work,  and  in  the 
performance  of  which  they  are  called  "  apostles," 
was  not  an  "  ordination"  in  the  peculiar  sense  of  the 
word,  but  a  mere  designation  to  a  special  missionary 
service,  and  that  as  the  term  "  apostle"  belonged  of 
right  to  Paul  before  this,  so  it  is  to  be  inferred  that 
the  same  designation  belonged  to  Barnabas,  and  to 
7* 


74  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

each  of  the  others  who  were  there  named — "  Simeon, 
and  Niger,  and  Lucius,  and  Manaen,"  Tract  pp.  16, 
17.  The  argument  is,  that  if  this  were  not  an  "or- 
dination," the  name  "  apostle"  was  not  given  to  them 
in  virtue  of  this  transaction,  but  must  have  apper- 
tained to  them  before. 

As  this  is  a  point  of  some  importance,  and  as  it 
is  an  argument  much  insisted  on  by  EpiscopaUans, 
that  because  the  name  apostle  is  given  to  certain 
men  in  the  New  Testament,  therefore,  they  were  of 
a  grade  superior  in  rank  to  other  "  clergy,"  and 
that  the  *'  order"  was  designed  to  be  perpetuated, 
it  is  important  first  to  examine  the  meaning  of  the 
word  "  apostle,"  and  then  to  inquire  in  what  sense 
it  is  applied  to  Barnabas.     The  word  artoa'to^.o^ — 
apostle^  meaning  sent — occurs  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment eighty-one  times.     It  is  applied  to  the  follow- 
ing persons.     (1.)  To  the  Saviour  himself,  as  sent 
from  God — the  Great  Apostle  to  the  world.  Heb.  iii. 
1,    Comp.  here  the  numerous  places  where  the  Sa- 
viour says  he  was  "  sent''''  from  God  into  the  world. 
(2.)    To  the  original   number  whom   the   Saviour 
chose  to  be  his  apostles  to  the  world.     Matth.  x.  2, 
Mark  vi.  30,  Luke  vi.  13,  ix.  10,  xi.  49,  xvii.  5, 
xxii.  14,  xxiv.  10,  Acts  i.  2,  26,  ii.  37,  42,  43,  iv. 
33,  35,  36,  37,  v.  2,  12,  18,  29,  34,  40,  vi.  6,  viii. 
1,  14,  18,  ix.  27,  xi.  1,  xiv.  4,  xv.  2,  4,  6,  22,  23, 
33,  xvi.  4,  Rom.  xvi.  7,  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  29,  xv.  7. 
Gal.  i.  17,  19,  Eph.  ii.  20,  iii.  5,  iv.  11,  1  Thes.  ii. 


OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  75 

6, 11,  2  Pet.  i.  1,  ii.  1,  iii.  2,  Jude  17,  Rev.  xviii.  20, 
xxi.  14.  (3.)  To  Paul,  reckoned  as  an  apostle,  and 
especially  endowed  for  this  purpose  by  having  had  a 
miraculous  view  of  the  Saviour  after  his  ascension. 
Acts  xiv.  14,  Rom.  i.  1,  xi.  13,  1  Cor.  i.  1,  ix.  1,  2, 
XV.  9,  2  Cor.  i.  1,  xii.  12,  Gal.  i.  1,  Eph.  i.  1,  Col.  i. 
1,  1  Tim.  i.  1,  ii.  7,  2  Tim.  i.  1,  11,  Titus  i.  1.  (4.) 
To  Barnabas  in  one  instance  only,  Acts  xiv.  14. 
(5.)  To  certain  "  brethren"  who  accompanied  Titus 
when  he  was  sent  by  Paul  to  Corinth,  and  who  are 
called  "  the  messengers  of  the  churches" — artoaTfdXoi 
ixx%'riQ{Mv — the  apostles  of  the  churches.  The  num- 
ber and  names  of  these  persons  are  unknown,  but 
the  only  rank  which  they  sustained  was  that  of  being 
sent  from  one  church  to  another.  2  Cor.  viii.  23. 
(6.)  In  a  similar  sense  it  is  applied  in  Phil.  ii.  25, 
to  Epaphroditus,  sent  by  the  church  at  Philippi  to 
Rome,  to  supply  the  wants  of  Paul  when  a  prisoner 
there.  (7.)  It  is  applied  to  any  one  who  is  sent  to 
perform  any  office  whatever.  "  The  servant  is 
not  greater  than  his  Lord ;  neither  is  he  that  is  sent 
(ov5£  drtocjf  0X05 — neither  the  apostle,)  greater  than  he 
that  sent  him."  John  xiii.  16. 

These  passages  show  the  sense  in  which  the  word 
is  used  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the  true  force  of 
any  argument  that  may  be  derived  from  its  use.  It 
means  properly  one  who  is  sent,  and  may  be  used 
with  reference  to  one  who  is  sent  for  any  purpose, 


76  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

and  may  be  applied,  therefore,  to  any  minister  of 
religion,  or  to  any  one  sent  for  a  specific  object,  who 
is  not  even  a  minister  of  religion.  The  mere  use  of 
this  word,  therefore,  proves  nothing  in  respect  to  the 
matter  under  consideration.  The  argument  relied 
on  by  the  Episcopalian  is,  that  the  fact  that  the 
tvord  is  applied  to  an  individual  proves  that  he  was 
an  apostle  in  the  strict  and  proper  sense.  But  in 
order  to  the  validity  of  this  argument,  it  is  necessary 
to  believe  that  the  word  is  used  in  no  other  sense  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  this  would  prove,  not  only 
that  Barnabas  was  an  apostle  properly  so  called,  but 
that  Epaphroditus  was,  and  that  all  the  messengers 
whom  Paul  sent  with  Titus  were;  and  that  any  one 
who  was  ever  sent  for  any  purpose  was  called  an 
"  apostle"  in  the  strict  and  proper  sense.  If  the 
Episcopalians,  therefore,  insist  on  it,  that  the  fact 
that  the  name  "  apostle"  was  given  to  Barnabas  or 
Silas,  (Tract  p.  15,)  proves  that  they  were  apostles, 
and  that  the  "order"  was  intended  to  be  "con- 
tinued," then  we  insist  on  it  that  the  church  at 
Philippi  sent  a  prelatical  bishop — Epaphroditus — to 
"  minister  to  the  wants  of  Paul,"  and  that  Paul  sent 
a  whole  company  of  "  apostles,"  or  prelatical  bish- 
ops on  a  general  exploring  tour  through  Greece,  or 
more  likely  on  a  visit  to  a  particular  church  there. 
2  Cor.  viii.  23.  But  as  this  consequence  will  not  be 
conceded  by  Episcopalians,  it  follows  that  the  argu- 
ment on  which  they  rely,  derived  from  the  fact  that 


OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  77 

the  name  "  apostle,"  is  given  to  Barnabas  is  worth- 
less. In  fact,  it  is  known  to  be  worthless  by  Epis- 
copalians themselves.  Dr.  Onderdonk  himself  prac- 
tically concedes  it  in  the  following  judicious  obser- 
vation, p.  13.  "A  little  refection  and  practice  will 
enable  any  of  our  readers  to  look  in  Scripture  for  the 
several  sacred  offices,  independently  of  the  names 
there  or  elsewhere  given  to  them^  The  truth  is,  in 
regard  to  this  word,  and  to  all  others,  that  the  spe- 
cific sense  in  which  it  is  used  is  to  be  determined  by 
the  connection  and  the  circumstances. 

Let  us  then  inquire  in  regard  to  the  case  of  Bar- 
nabas, whether  there  is  any  thing  in  the  connection 
and  circumstances  where  the  term  is  applied  to  him, 
which  shows  that  he  was  an  apostle  in  the  strict 
and  proper  sense,  or  that  it  was  intended  that  the 
"order"  should  be  perpetuated  through  him. 

The  only  instance  in  which  the  word  apostle  is 
applied  to  Barnabas,  as  has  already  been  remarked, 
is  in  Acts  xiv.  14.  "Which  when  the  apostles 
Barnabas  and  Paul  heard  of,  they  rent  their  clothes." 
Now,  to  see  the  fair  and  proper  meaning  of  the 
word,  as  here  applied  to  Barnabas,  we  may  advert 
to  the  following  considerations:  (1.)  There  is  no 
account  that  Barnabas  was  ever  elected,  ordained, 
or  appointed,  in  any  way,  to  the  apostolic  office. 
There  is  a  particular  account  of  the  election  of 
Matthias,  and  of  the  manner  in  which  Paul  was 
selected  and  set  apart  to  be  an  apostle ;  but  there  is 


78  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

no  intimation  that  Barnabas  was  ever  chosen  in  any 
manner  for  that  office.  (2.)  Barnabas  is  repeatedly- 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  but  in  no  other 
instance  as  an  apostle.  He  first  appears  in  Acrs 
iv.  36,  where  it  is  said  that  he  came  with  other 
converts  having  property  and  laid  it  at  the  apostles' 
feet.  He  is  then  mentioned  (Acts  xi.  22,)  as  having 
been  sent  by  the  "  church  in  Jerusalem"  to  An- 
tioch,  on  occasion  of  a  revival  of  religion  there, 
and  an  account  of  his  success  there  is  given  as  a 
preacher.  He  is  then  referred  to  as  having  volun- 
tarily gone  to  seek  the  Apostle  Paul  at  Tarsus, 
to  induce  him  to  come  to  Antioch.  At  this 
time,  Paul  and  Barnabas  laboured  together  a  whole 
year  at  Antioch,  but  there  is  no  intimation  that 
he  was  ordained  to  the  apostleship.  Acts  xi.  26. 
He  is  then  mentioned  as  going  up  to  Jerusalem  with 
Paul  in  a  time  of  famine  to  carry  to  afflicted  Chris- 
tians there  the  benefactions  of  the  church  at  Antioch. 
Acts  xi.  30.  In  Acts  xii.  25,  it  is  said,  that  having 
accomplished  this,  Barnabas  and  Saul  returned  from 
Jerusalem  to  Antioch,  taking  with  them  John  Mark. 
Subsequently  Barnabas  and  Paul  are  mentioned  as 
travelling  companions,  and  Barnabas  is  not  ad- 
verted to  except  in  connection  with  Paul.  Acts  xiii. 
1,  2,  50;  xiv.  12;  xv.  2,  12,  37;  1  Cor.  ix.  6;  Gal. 
ii.  1,  9, 13;  Col.  iv.  10.  In  all  this,  however,  there 
is  no  intimation  that  he  was  ever  selected  and  or- 
dained to  the  apostolic  office.     In  the  numerous  in- 


OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  79 

Stances  in  which  he  is  mentioned,  the  name  apostle 
is  never  given  to  him  but  once.  (3.)  The  reason 
why  the  name  was  given  to  him  on  that  occasion,  it 
is  not  difficult  to  understand.  It  was  not  because 
he  was  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term  an  "  apostle," 
but  in  the  same  sense  in  which  Epaphroditus  was 
the  "  apostle"  of  the  church  at  Philippi,  (Phil.  ii.  25,) 
and  as  the  "  brethren"  sent  with  Titus  were  the 
"  apostles"  of  the  churches,  (2  Cor.  viii.  23;)  that  is, 
they  were  the  messengers  of  the  churches.  We  find 
the  following  account  of  an  important  transaction  in 
relation  to  Barnabas  before  this  name  is  given  to 
him  at  all.  In  the  church  at  Antioch  there  were 
"  certain  prophets  and  teachers,  as  Barnabas,  and 
Simeon,  and  Lucius,  and  Manaen,  and  Sauiy  The 
rank  which  they  together  sustained  was  that  of 
"  prophets  and  teachers ;"  and  the  only  title  which 
appears  to  have  been  conferred  on  Barnabas  was 
that  of  a  "  prophet  and  teacher."  That  also  apper- 
tained to  Paul,  though  from  many  other  places  we 
also  know  that  before  this  he  was  entitled  to  the 
proper  nam.e  of  an  apostle.  As  these  "  prophets  and 
teachers"  ministered  to  the  Lord  and  fasted,  "  the 
Holy  Ghost  said.  Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul 
for  the  work  whereto  I  have  called  them.  And  when 
they  had  fasted  and  prayed,  and  laid  their  hands 
on  them,  they  sent  them  away.  So,  they  being 
sent  forth  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  departed  unto  Seleu- 
cia."  Acts  xiii.  1 — 5.     Now,  two  things  are  mani- 


80  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

fest  in  this  account.  The  first  is,  that  this  was 
not  an  ordination  to  the  apostolic  ojice.  This  is 
perfectly  apparent  from  the  face  of  the  transaction, 
for  (a)  Paul  was  an  apostle  before;  (b)  the  persons 
engaged  in  the  ordination,  if  it  were  an  ordination, 
were  not  themselves  apostles ;  (c)  the  purpose  for 
which  they  were  set  apart  is  particularly  specified, 
and  that  is  a  distinct  design  from  the  apostolic  office. 
Indeed  so  clear  is  this,  that  Dr.  Onderdonk  has 
maintained  with  great  zeal  and  confidence  that  this 
was  not  an  ordination  at  all.  Tract,  pp.  16, 17.  "  If 
it  was  not  an  ordination,"  says  he,  "as  it  certainly 
was  not^  it  was  a  mere  setting  apart  of  those  two 
apostles  (?)  to  a'  particular  field  of  duty."  "  That 
this  transaction  at  Antioch  related  only  to  a  special 
missionary  '  work,'  will  be  found  sufficiently  clear 
by  those  who  will  trace  the  progress  of  Paul  and 
Barnabas  through  that  work  from  Acts  xiii.  4,  to 
xiv.  26,  where  its  completion  is  recorded."  "  This 
call,  therefore,  this  separation,  this  work,  related 
only  to  a  particular  mission,  and  this  laying  on  of 
hands  was  no  ordination."  The  second  thing  appa- 
rent from  this  account  is,  that  this  setting  apart  to  a 
particular  work  laid  the  foundation  for  the  appropri- 
ate designation  of  Barnabas  and  Paul  as  *'  apostles," 
in  the  sense  that  they  were  the  messengers  of  the 
churches.  They  were  designated  to  a  particular 
"  missionary  work."  They  were  "  sent  forth"  to  ac- 
complish this.   Acts  xiii.  4.     They  are  thus  desig- 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  81 

natcd  as  thus  sent  forth,  or  as  apostles,  or  messengers 
of  the  church,  (comp.  Phil.  ii.  25;  2  Cor.  viii.  23,) 
are  thus  designated  by  the  inspired  historian,  and 
all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  are  met  by  this 
supposition.  (4.)  This  view  is  confirmed  by  a  fact 
which  can  be  explained  on  no  other  supposition,  that 
the  name  apostle  is  never  given  to  Barnabas  subse- 
quent to  his  fulfilling  this  missionary  appointment 
with  the  apostle  Paul.  Acts  xiv.  26.  He  is  re- 
peatedly mentioned  after  this,  but  in  no  case  as  an 
apostle.  No  instance  is  referred  to  of  his  perform- 
ing any  other  functions  than  those  of  a  travelling 
companion  of  the  apostle  Paul  as  a  preacher  and  a 
beloved  brother;  nor  is  there  an  intimation  that  he 
sustained  any  other  "  rank,"  or  belonged  to  any 
other  "  order"  than  that  which  appertained  to  all 
who  were  preachers  of  the  gospel.  With  what 
propriety  then  is  he  pressed  into  the  service  of  Epis- 
copacy 1  Or  what  must  be  the  real  strength  of  that 
cause  which  is  constrained  to  rely  on  such  an  in- 
stance to  prove  that  there  was  such  "  an  arrange- 
ment persevered  in  as  to  prove  that  the  apostolic 
order  was  to  be  permanent"  in  the  church  to  the 
end  of  the  world  ? 

The  next  case  relied  on  by  Episcopalians  is 
"probably  James,  the  brother  of  our  Lord."  Tract, 
p.  15.  The  use  of  the  word  probably,  here,  shows 
a  wish  to  press  cases  into  the  service,  which  looks 
suspicious  in  a  tract  making  strong  pretensions  to 
8 


82  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

strict  demonstration:  (comp.  pp.  3,  11, 16,  23, etc.) 
and  evinces  a  deficiency  of  strong,  palpable  instances, 
which  betrays  the  conscious  feebleness  of  the  argu- 
ment. "  James,  the  Lord's  brother,"  is  once  men- 
tioned as  an  apostle:  Gal.  i.  19.  But  it  could  not 
have  escaped  the  recollection  of  Dr.  Onderdonk  that 
there  were  tico  of  the  name  oi"  James  among  the  apos- 
tles in  the  specific  sense  of  the  term,  viz.  James  the 
brother  of  John,  and  son  of  Zebedee,  and  James  the 
son  of  Alpheus.  Matt.  x.  3;  Luke  vi.  15.  Nor  can 
it  be  unknown  to  Episcopalians  that  the  word  bro- 
ther was  used  by  the  Hebrews  to  denote  a  relative 
more  remote  than  that  which  is  designated  by  the 
ordinary  use  of  the  word  among  us,  and  that  Al- 
pheus was  probably  a  connection  of  the  family  of 
our  Lord.  What  proof,  then,  is  there,  that  he  was 
not  referred  to  in  the  passage  before  us?  As  this 
case  is  alleged  to  have  only  a  probability  in  its 
favour,  it  may  be  regarded  as  disposed  of. 

Silvanus  and  Timothy  are  the  next  mentioned. 
As  their  claim  to  be  considered  apostles  rests  on 
the  same  foundation,  so  far  as  the  name  is  any 
evidence,  these  cases  will  be  disposed  of  by  con- 
sidering that  of  Timothy  at  length  in  a  subsequent 
part  of  the  argument. 

The  other  cases  are  those  of  Andronicus  and 
Junia.  The  foundation  for  their  claim  to  be  enrolled 
as  apostles,  is  the  following  mention  of  them  by 
Paul :  Rom.  xvi.  7.    *'  Salute  Andronicus  and  Junia, 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  83 

my  kinsmen,  who  are  of  note  among  the  apostJes,^^ 
oi'tivii  slaiv  BTtiarjixoi  h  fols  d?to(5To7.otj.  On  this  claim 
I  remark :  (1.)  Admitting  that  they  are  here  called 
apostles,  the  name,  as  has  been  proved,  does  not 
imply  that  they  had  any  "  superiority  of  ministerial 
rights  and  powers."  They  might  have  been  distin- 
guished as  messengers,  or  labourers,  like  Epaph- 
roditus.  (2.)  It  is  clear,  that  Paul  did  not  mean 
to  give  them  the  name  of  apostles  at  all.  If  he 
had  designed  it,  the  phraseology  would  have  been 
different.  Comp.  Rom,  i.  1 ;  1  Cor.  i.  1 ;  2  Cor. 
i.  1;  Phil.  i.  1.  (3.)  All  that  the  expression /air/i/ 
implies,  is,  that  they,  having  been  early  converted, 
(Rom.  xvi.  7,)  and  being  acquainted  with  the  apos- 
tles at  Jerusalem,  were  held  in  high  esteem  by  them  ; 
that  is,  the  apostles  regarded  them  with  confidence 
and  affection.* 

The  next  point  of  proof,  "  that  the  distinction 
between  elders  and  a  grade  superior  to  them,  in 
regard  especially  to  the  power  of  ordaining,  was  so 
persevered  in  as  to  indicate  that  it  was  a  permanent 
arrangement," — and  a  point  much  insisted  on  by 
Episcopalians — is  drawn  from  the  charge  given  by 
the  apostle  Paul  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus.  Acts  xx. 
28 — 35.     The  point  of  this  evidence  is  this.     Paul 

*  Dr.  Onderdonk  says  that  Calvin,  in  his  Institutes 
*' allows  Andronicus  and  .Tunia  to  have  been  apostles;'* 
but  he  ought  to  have  added  that  Calvin,  in  his  Commen- 
lary  on  tlie  passage,  written  at  a  later  period,  denies  that 
they  were  apostles  in  the  specific  sense  of  the  term. 


84  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

charges  the  elders  at  Ephesus  to  "  take  heed  to 
themselves," — "  to  take  heed  to  all  the  flock  over 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them  overseers — ' 
to  feed  the  church  of  God — to  watch  against  the 
grievous  wolves  that  would  assail  the  flock,"  etc. 
In  all  this,  we  are  told,  there  is  not  a  word  respect- 
ing the  power  of  ordaining,  nor  any  thing  which 
shows  that  they  had  the  power  of  clerical  discipline. 
"  No  power  is  intimated  to  depose  from  office  one 
of  their-  own  number,  or  an  unsound  minister  com- 
ing among  them."  They  are  to  "  tend"  or  "  rule" 
the  flock  as  shepherds;  "for  shepherds  do  not  tend 
and  rule  shepherds."  pp.  23,  14. 

This  is  affirmed  to  be  the  sole  power  of  these 
elders.  In  connection  with  this,  we  are  asked  to 
read  the  epistles  to  Timothy — the  power  there  given 
"  personally  to  Timothy  at  Ephesus,^^  (p.  23,)  or  as 
it  is  elsewhere  expressed,  "  Compare  now  with  this 
sum  total  of  power  assigned  to  mere  elders,  or  pres- 
byters, that  of  Timothy  at  Ephesus,  the  very  city 
and  region  in  which  those  addressed  by  Paul  in 
Acts  XX.,  resided  and  ministered."  p.  25.  In  those 
epistles  it  is  said,  that  the  "  right  of  governing  the 
clergy,  and  ordaining,  is  ascribed  to  him  person- 
ally ;"  and  numerous  undisputed  passages  are  then 
adduced,  to  show  that  Timothy  is  addressed  as 
having  this  power.  1  Tim.  i.  18;  iii.  14,  15;  iv.  6; 
1  Tim.  i.  3;  V.  19—21,  etc.  etc. 

Now  this  argument  proceeds  on  the  following 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  85 

assumptions,  viz :  1 .  That  Timothy  was  called  an 
apostle ;  was  invested  with  the  same  powers  as  the 
apostles,  and  was  one  of  their  successors  in  the 
office.  2.  That  he  was,  at  the  time  when  Paul  gave 
his  charge  to  the  elders  at  Miletus,  Bishop  of  Ephe- 
sus.  3.  That  the  "  elders"  summoned  to  Miletus, 
were  ministers  of  the  gospel  of  the  second  order,  or 
as  they  are  now  termed,  usually,  priests,  in  contra- 
distinction from  bishops  and  deacons.  If  these 
points  are  not  made  out  from  the  New  Testament,  or 
if  any  one  of  them  fails,  this  argument  for  Epis- 
copacy will  be  of  no  value. 

The  first  claim  is,   that  Timothy  is  called  an 
"  apostle,"  and  was,  therefore,  clothed  with  apos- 
tolic powers.     This  claim  is  advanced  on  p.  15. 
"  Silvanus  also,  and  Timothy,  are  called  '  apostles,'  " 
and  the  claim  is  implied  in  the  whole  argument,  and 
is  essential  to  its  validity.    The  proof  on  which  this 
claim  is  made  to  rest,  is  contained  in  1  Thess.  i.  1, 
compared  with  1  Thess.  ii.  6.     Paul,  Silvanus,  and 
Timothy  are  joined  together  in  the  commencement 
of  the  epistle,  as  writing  it  to  the  church  at  Thessa- 
lonica ;  and  in  ch.  ii.  6,  the  following  expression 
occurs,  "  Nor  of  man  sought  we  glory — when  we 
might  have  been  burdensome  as  the  apostles  of 
Christ."    This  is  the  sole  proof  of  the  apostleship 
of  Timothy — of  which  so   much  is  made  in  the 
Episcopal  controversy,  and  which  is  usually  ap- 
pealed to  as  of  itself  sufficient  to  settle  the  question. 
8* 


86  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

Perhaps  there  is  no  point  in  this  controversy 
asserted  with  more  confidence,  or  more  relied  on  by 
Episcopalians,  than  that  Timothy  was  an  "  apostle," 
and  was  "  Bishop"  or  Prelate  of  Ephesus.  It  is  of 
importance,  therefore,  to  show  how  this  matter  is  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  having  disposed  of  this 
case,  the  argument  about  the  immediate  "  succes- 
sors" of  the  apostles  is  at  an  end. 

Now,  without  insisting  on  the  point  which  has 
been  made  out,  that  the  apostolic  office  was  con- 
ferred not  to  impart "  superiority  of  ministerial  rights 
and  powers,"  but  to  establish  every  where  the  great 
doctrine  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  that  conse- 
quently if  Timothy  is  called  an  apostle,  it  is  only  in 
the  generic  sense  of  the  word,  and  that  Paul  might 
also  on  this  occasion  speak  of  himself  as  joined 
with  Timothy  and  Silvanus  as  a  messenger  of  the 
churches,  (comp.  Acts  xiii.  2;  xiv.  14;  Rom.  xvi. 
25;  2  Cor.  viii.  23,)  the  claim  will  be  disposed  of 
by  the  following  considerations. 

1.  The  passage  in  1  Thess.  ii.  6,  does  not  fairly 
imply  that  Timothy  was  even  called  an  apostle. 
For  it  is  admitted  in  the  tract,  (p.  15,)  that  "it  is 
not  unusual  for  St.  Paul  to  use  the  plural  number 
of  himself  only."  It  is  argued  indeed  that  the  words 
"  apostles,"  and  "  our  own  souls,"  (v.  8,)  being  in- 
applicable to  the  singular  use  of  the  plural  number, 
hence  the  "  three  whose  names  are  at  the  head  of 
the  epistle,  are  here  spoken  of  jointly."     But  if  Paul 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  87 

used  the  plural  number  as  applicable  to  himself, 
would  it  not  be  natural  for  him  to  continue  its  use, 
and  to  employ  the  adjectives,  etc.  connected  with  it 
in  the  same  number?  Besides  there  is  conclusive 
evidence  that  Paul  did  not  intend  to  include  the 
"  three"  named  at  the  head  of  the  epistle,  in  this  ex- 
pression in  ver.  6.  For  in  the  verses  immediately 
preceding,  mention  is  made  that  "  we  had  suffered 
before,  and  were  shamefully  treated,  as  ye  know,  at 
Philippi,"  etc.  Now  it  is  capable  of  demonstration, 
that  Timothy  was  not  present  at  that  time,  and  was 
not  engaged  in  those  labours,  or  subjected  to  those 
sufferings  at  Philippi.  Acts  xvi.  12,  19;  xviii.  1 — 4. 
It  follows,  therefore,  that  Paul  did  not  intend  here 
to  imply  that  "  the  three  named  at  the  head  of  the 
epistle"  were  apostles;  and,  that  he  intended  to 
speak  of  himself  alone  in  ver.  6.  That  this  is  so  is 
evident  from  chap.  iii.  In  ver.  1  of  that  chapter, 
Paul  uses  the  plural  term  also.  "  When  we  could 
no  longer  forbear,  we  thought  it  good  to  be  left 
at  Athens  alone."  Comp.  ver.  5.  "  For  this  cause, 
when  /  could  no  longer  forbear,  7  sent  to  know  your 
faith."  From  this  it  is  clear  that  Paul,  when  he 
uses  the  plural  here,  refers  only  to  himself,  and  that 
Timothy  and  Silas  are  associated  with  him  in  chap. 
i.  1,  not  as  having  apostolic  authority,  but  for  the 
mere  purpose  of  salutation,  or  kind  remembrance. 

2.  Our  next  proof  that  Timothy  was  not  an  apos- 
tle, is,  that  he  is  expressly  distinguished  from  Paul, 


88  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

as  an  apostle;  that  is,  in  the  same  verse,  Paul  is 
cai'eful  to  ^peak  of  himself  as  an  apostle,  and  of 
Timothy  as  not  an  apostle.  Thus,  2  Cor.  i.  1,  "  Paul 
an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  Timothy  our  brother." 
Again,  Col.  i.  1,  "  Paul  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  Timothy  our  brother."  Now,  the  argument  is 
this,  that  if  Paul  regarded  Timothy  as  an  apostle, 
it  is  remarkable  that  he  should  be  so  careful  to  make 
this  distinction,  when  his  own  name  is  mentioned  as 
an  apostle.  Why  did  he  not  also  make  the  same 
honourable  mention  of  Timothy?  The  distinction 
is  the  more  remarkable  from  the  next  consideration 
to  be  adduced,  which  is,  that  Paul  is  so  cautious  on 
this  point — so  resolved  not  to  call  Timothy  an  apos- 
tle, that  when  their  names  are  joined  together,  as  in 
any  sense  claiming  the  same  appellation,  it  is  not 
as  apostles,  but  as  servants.  Phil.  i.  1 :  "  Paul  and 
Timotheus,  the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ."  See  also, 
1  Thess.  i.  1;  2  Thess.  i.  1.  These  considerations 
put  it  beyond  debate  that  Timothy  is  not  called  an 
apostle  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  second  claim  for  Timothy  is,  that  he  was 
bishop — that  is,  prelate  of  Ephesus.  This  claim  is 
essential  to  the  argument  of  Dr.  Onderdonk,  and  is 
every  where  implied  in  what  he  says  of  Timothy. 
See  pp.  23,  25.  This  is  also  commonly  assumed 
by  Episcopalians  as  an  indisputable  or  conceded 
point.  Indeed  so  confident  are  they  of  this,  that  it 
is  not  deemed  necessary  by  them  to  suggest  any 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  89 

arguments  in  the  case,  but  it  is  adverted  to  as  if  it 
were  among  undoubted  historical  facts.  Thus,  in 
one  of  the  latest  publications  on  Episcopacy,  Dr. 
McKoskry  says,  "  The  apostle pZaces  him  [Timothy] 
over  the  church  at  Ephesus,  and  gives  him  the  power 
to  ordain  elders  and  deacons  in  the  churches,  as  is 
evident  from  his  instructions  to  him."  Now  this 
point  should  have  been  made  out,  for  it  is  not  one 
of  those  which  we  are  disposed  by  any  means  to 
concede.  It  is  to  be  remembered  too,  that  it  is  a 
point  which  is  to  be  made  out  from  the  Neiv  Testa- 
ment, for  our  inquiry  is,  whether  Episcopacy  can  be 
defended  "  by  Scripture."  Let  us  see  how  this  mat- 
ter stands. 

It  may  be  proper  here  to  remark,  that  the  sub- 
scription at  the  close  of  the  second  epistle  to  Timo- 
thy, is  admitted  on  all  hands  to  be  uninspired  and 
of  no  authority  in  the  argument.  Assuredly  Paul 
would  not  close  a  letter  by  seriously  informing  Ti- 
mothy that  he  wrote  "  a  second  epistle"  to  him,  in- 
forming him  that  he  was  "  ordained  the  first  bishop 
of  the  church  of  the  Ephesians ;"  and  that  it  was 
"  written  from  Rome  when  Paul  was  brought  before 
Nero  the  second  time."  None  of  the  subscriptions 
at  the  close  of  the  epistles  in  the  New  Testament 
are  of  any  authority  whatever ;  several  of  them 
are  undoubtedly  false,  and  where  they  happen  to  be 
correct,  the  correctness  is  to  be  made  out  from  other 


90  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

considerations  than  the  fact  that  they  are  found 
there. 

Now,  how  does  the  case  stand  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament with  respect  to  Timothy?  What  testimony 
does  it  afford  as  to  his  being  "  Bishop  of  Ephesus?" 
A  few  observations  will  show  what  is  the  real 
strength  of  the  proof  relied  on  by  Episcopalians  in 
the  case. 

1.  It  is  admitted  that  he  was  not  at  Ephesus  at 
the  time  when  Paul  made  his  address  to  the  elders 
at  Miletus.  Acts  xx.  17 — 35.  Thus,  p.  25,  "Ephe- 
sus was  without  a  bishop  when  Paul  addressed  the 
elders,  Timothy  not  having  been  placed  over  that 
church  till  some  time  afterwards."  Here  then  was 
one  diocese,  or  one  collection  of  churches,  which  is 
admitted  to  have  been  constituted  without  a  prelate. 
The  presumptisn  is,  that  all  others  were  organized 
in  the  same  way. 

2.  The  charge  which  Paul  gives  to  the  Elders 
proves  that  Timothy  was  not  there ;  and  proves  fur- 
ther, that  they,  at  that  time,  had  no  prelatical  bish- 
ops, and  that  they  previously  had  none.  They 
are  charged  to  take  heed  to  themselves,  and  to  all 
the  flock,  "  to  feed"  or  "  to  rule"  the  flock,  etc.  But 
not  one  word  is  to  be  found  of  their  having  then  any 
prelatical  bishop;  not  one  word  of  Timothy  as 
their  Episcopal  leader.  Not  an  exhortation  is  given 
U)  be  subject  to  any  prelate;  not  an  intimation  that 
they  would  ever  be  called  on  to  recognize  any  such 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  91 

officer.  Not  one  word  of  lamentation  or  condo- 
lence is  expressed,  that  they  were  not  fully  supplied 
with  all  proper  Episcopal  authority.  All  of  which 
is  inexplicable  on  the  supposition  that  they  were 
then  destitute,  and  that  it  was  desirable  that  they 
should  be  supplied  with  an  officer  "  superior  in  min- 
isterial rights  and  powers."  Nay,  they  are  them- 
selves expressly  called  bishops,  without  the  slightest 
intimation  that  there  were  any  higher,  or  more 
honourable  prelates  than  themselves.  Acts  xx.  28: 
"  Take  heed,  therefore,  to  yourselves,  and  to  all  the 
flock  over  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you 
bishops^^ — srtiaxoTtovi. 

3.  It  is  admitted  by  non-Episcopalians,  that  Tim- 
othy subsequently  was  at  Ephesus,  and  that  he  was 
left  there  for  an  important  purpose,  by  the  apostle 
Paul.  This  was  when  he  went  to  Macedonia. 
1  Tim.  i.  3:  "As  I  besought  thee  to  abide  still  at 
Ephesus,  when  I  went  into  Macedonia,  that  thou 
mightest  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doc- 
trine, neither  give  heed  to  fables  and  endless  gene- 
alogies." This  is  the  only  intimation  in  the  New 
Testament,  that  Timothy  was  ever  at  Ephesus  at 
all.  It  is  important,  then,  to  ascertain  whether 
he  was  left  there  as  a  permanent  bishop  ?  Now,  in 
settling  this,  I  remark,  it  is  no  where  intimated  in 
the  New  Testament,  that  he  was  such  a  bishop. 
The  passage  before  us,  1  Tim.  i.  3,  states,  that 
when  they  were  travelling  together,  Paul  left  him 


92  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

there,  while  he  himself  should  go  over  into  Mace- 
donia. The  ohject  for  which  he  left  him  is  explicitly- 
stated,  and  that  object  was  not  that  he  should  be  a 
permanent  prelatical  bishop.  It  is  said  to  be  "  to 
charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine,  nei- 
ther to  give  heed  to  fables  and  endless  genealogies :" 
that  is,  manifestly  to  perform  a  temporary  office  of 
regulating  certain  disorders  in  the  church ;  of  silen- 
cing certain  false  teachers  of  Jewish  extraction ;  of 
producing,  in  one  word,  a  harmonizing  effect  which 
the  personal  influence  of  the  apostle  himself  might 
have  produced,  but  for  a  sudden  and  unexpected  call 
to  Macedonia,  Acts  xx.  1.  Hence,  it  is  perfectly 
clear,  that  the  apostle  designed  this  as  a  temporary- 
appointment  for  a  specific  object,  and  that  object 
was  not  to  be  prelate  of  the  church.  Thus  he  says, 
1  Tim.  iv.  13,  "  Till  I  come,  give  attention  to  read-* 
ing:"  implying  that  his  temporary  office  was  then 
to  cease.  Thus  too,  referring  to  the  same  purpose 
to  return  and  join  Timothy,  he  says,  1  Tim.  iii.  14, 
15:  "These  things  I  write  unto  thee,  hoping  to 
come  unto  thee  shortly;  but  if  I  tarry  long,  that 
thou  mightest  know  how  thou  oughtest  to  behave 
thyself  in  the  house  of  God ;"  implying  that  these 
directions  were  particularly  to  serve  him  during  his 
appointment  to  the  specific  business  of  regulating 
some  disordered  affairs  caused  by  false  teachers, 
and  which  might  require  the  discipline  of  even  some 
of  the  bishops  and  deacons  of  the  church,  ch.  v.  vi. 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  93 

These  directions,  involving  general  principles  in- 
deed, and  of  value  to  regulate  his  whole  life,  had, 
nevertheless,  a  manifest  special  reference  to  the 
cases  which  might  occur  there,  in  putting  a  period 
to  the  promulgation  of  erroneous  doctrines  by  Jew- 
ish teachers.     1  Tim.  i.  3. 

4.  The  claim  that  Timothy  was  bishop  of  Ephe- 
sus,  is  one  that  must  be  made  out  by  Episcopalians 
from  the  New  Testament.  But  this  claim  has  not 
been  made  out,  nor  can  it  ever  be.  There  is  no 
where  in  the  New  Testament,  a  declaration  or  an 
intimation,  that  he  was  constituted  bishop  of  Ephe- 
sus.  There  is  but  one  intimation  that  he  was 
ever  there  on  any  occasion,  and  it  is  not  affirmed 
or  implied  that  he  was  then  constituted  a  bishop 
there.  No  assertion,  so  far  as  the  New  Testament 
is  concerned,  could  possibly  be  more  gratuitous 
than  that  he  was  "  bishop  of  Ephesus,"  and  the 
wonder  is,  that  such  an  assertion  ever  was  made 
as  depending  on  the  authority  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, or  that  it  should  continue  to  be  persevered  in. 
Probably,  the  real  ground  of  confidence  in  those 
who  continue  to  make  this  assertion,  is  the  subscrip- 
tion at  the  close  of  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy — 
a  subscription  whose  age  and  author  are  unknown, 
and  which  is  destitute  of  every  shadow  of  authority. 

5.  The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  shows  further, 
that  at  the  time  of  writing  that,  there  was  no  prela- 
tical  bishop  at  Ephesus.     Though  in  that  epistle, 

9 


94  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

the  apostle  gives  the  church  various  instructions 
about  the  relations  which  existed,  there  is  not  the 
slightest  hint  that  Timothy  was  there;  nor  is  there 
the  least  intimation  that  any  such  officer  ever  had 
been,  or  ever  would  be,  set  over  them. 

The  evidence  from  this  epistle  deserves  more  no- 
tice than  has  been  usually  bestowed  upon  it,  and 
taking  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  into  con- 
sideration, is  decisive  on  the  question  whether  the 
church  there  had  an  Episcopal  bishop.  The  cir- 
cumstances are  these:  (1.)  If  Timothy  was  there 
as  a  "  bishop"  when  the  epistle  was  written,  it  is 
remarkable  that  there  is  no  allusion  to  him  in  the 
epistle.  A  total  want  of  all  mention  of  him  would 
have  been  an  act  of  discourtesy  such  as  we  should 
not  expect  from  the  apostle  Paul.  (2.)  If  he  had 
been  there  and  was  then  absent,  it  is  no  less  re- 
markable that  no  allusion  is  made  to  the  absent 
"  bishop"  of  the  church.  It  is  difficult  to  account 
for  it  that  there  is  no  kind  reference  to  his  labours 
and  fidelity ;  no  expression  of  a  wish  that  they  might 
soon  enjoy  his  labours  again.  (3.)  If  the  church 
was  deprived  of  its  bishop,  or  had  none,  and  this 
"  grade  of  officers"  was  essential  to  the  proper 
organization  of  the  church,  then  it  is  equally  re- 
markable that  there  is  no  allusion  to  this  fact,  and 
no  exhortation  to  take  the  proper  measures  to  com- 
plete their  organization  by  securing  the  services  of 
one  of  the  *  successors  of  the  apostles.'    (4.)  Very 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  95 

specific  instructions  are  given  in  the  epistle  to  a 
great  variety  of  persons,  but  none  in  relation  to  the 
**  bishop"  or  their  duties  to  him.  Thus  we  have 
special  exhortations  addressed  to  the  church,  ch.  iv. 
1.,  seq;  to  husbands  and  wives,  ch.  v.  21 — 23;  to 
children  and  fathers,  ch.  vi.  1 — 4;  to  servants,  ch. 
vi.  5 — 8 ;  to  masters,  ch.  vi.  9,  but  not  one  word  in 
regard  to  the  prelate  or  their  duty  to  him.  If  it  be 
said  here  that  the  same  thino;  is  true  in  reo-ard  to 
all  ministers,  and  that  they  are  not  alluded  to,  the 
answer  is  obvious.  Paul  had  given  them  a  solemn 
charge  personally  when  at  Miletus,  (Acts  xx.  17 — 
35,)  and  it  was  not  necessary  to  allude  to  the  sub- 
ject in  the  epistle.  He  had  said  to  them  all  which  it 
was  desirable  to  say,  and  no  reference  therefore  is 
made  to  the  subject  in  the  epistle. 

Now,  if  it  cannot  be  made  out  that  Timothy  was 
bishop  of  Ephesus,  then  in  reading  Paul's  charge  to 
the  elders  at  Miletus,  we  are  to  regard  them  as  in- 
trusted with  the  care  of  the  church  at  Ephesus.  It 
is  not  necessary  to  our  argument  at  present  to  in- 
quire whether  they  were  ruling  elders,  or  presbyters 
ordained  to  preach,  as  well  as  to  rule.  All  that  is 
incumbent  on  us,  is  to  show  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment does  not  warrant  the  assumption,  that  they 
were  subject  to  a  diocesan  bishop.  We  affirm, 
therefore,  simply,  that  Paul  addressed  them  as  in- 
trusted with  the  spiritual  instruction  and  government 
of  the  church  at  Ephesus,  without  any  reference 


96  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

whatever  to  any  person,  either  then  or  afterwards 
placed  over  them,  as  superior  in  ministerial  rights 
and  powers.  And  this  point  is  conclusively  estab- 
lished by  two  additional  considerations;  first,  that 
they  are  expressly  called  bishops,  iTHsxorcovi,  them- 
selves, a  most  remarkable  appellation,  if  the  apostle 
meant  to  have  them  understand  that  they  were  to 
be  under  the  administration  of  another  bishop  of  su- 
perior ministerial  powers  and  rights ;  and  secondly, 
that  they  are  expressly  intrusted  with  the  whole 
spiritual  charge  of  the  church,  "  Feed  the  church  of 
God,"  Ttoi^aiviiv  tYiv  sxxXi^riiav  x.  i'.  x.  But  every 
thing  in  this  case  is  fully  met  by  the  supposition, 
that  they  were  invested  with  the  simple  power  of 
ruling.  Dr.  Onderdonk  himself  admits  that  the 
word  translated  "  feed,"  ftotfjLalvsiv,  may  be  rendered 
to  "  rule."  p.  37.  No  one  can  deny,  indeed,  that 
the  word  here  used  in  the  instructions  of  Paul  to  the 
elders  of  Ephesus,  involves  this  idea  of  ruling,  or 
governing.  It  properly  means  to  feed,  pasture, 
guard,  defend,  tend,  as  applied  to  a  flock,  and  refers 
to  all  the  care  which  a  shepherd  would  extend  over 
his  flock.  This  includes  not  merely  the  feeding, 
properly  so  called,  but  the  attention  implied  in  pro- 
tecting them,  guiding  them,  saving  them  from  dan- 
ger, from  enemies,  &c.  This  language,  when 
transferred  to  the  shepherd  of  souls,  the  minister  of 
the  church,  means  that  he  is  to  exercise  a  similar 
care  over  the  flock  entrusted  to  him,  the  church. 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  97 

The  mere  business  of  counsel  and  instruction ;  of 
preaching  and  exhortation,  does  not  meet  the  full 
sense  of  the  word,  any  more  than  the  mere  business 
of  feeding  a  flock  would  embrace  all  that  the  word 
means  when  applied  to  a  shepherd.     See  Passow 
Lex,     The  word  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  in 
the  following  places,  and  translated  in  the  following 
manner.     In  Matth.  ii.  6,  Rev.  ii.  27,  xii.  5,  xix. 
15,  it  is  rendered  rule,  and  in  Luke  xvii.  7,  John 
xxi.  16,  Acts  XX.  28,  1  Cor.  ix.  7,  1  Peter  v.  2, 
Jude  12,  Rev.  vii.  17,  it  is  rendered  jTee^.     In  two 
of  these  places,  Luke  xvii.  7,  1  Cor.  ix,  7,  it  is  ap- 
plied to  the  literal  care  of  a  flock,  and  in  the  others, 
when  it  is  applied  to  a  people,  it  involves  the  idea  of 
government  or  control  over  them.     The  idea  which 
would  have  been  conveyed  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus 
by  the  language  employed  by  Paul  would  be,  that 
they  were  to  exercise  the  same  care  over  the  church 
which  a  shepherd  did  over  his  flock,  or  which  a 
governor  did  over  his  people,  or  which  the  com- 
mander of  an  army  did  over  his  army.     Every 
thing  involved  in  control,  care,  discipline,  govern- 
ment, would  be  fairly  and  obviously  conveyed  by 
the  use  of  the  term.     It  is  the  same  language  which 
the  Saviour  used  when  he  addressed  Peter,  one  of 
the  Apostles,  in  regard  to  his  care  of  the  church, 
(John  XX.  28,)  and  which  he  afterwards  himself  ad- 
dressed to  the  "  elders"  of  the  church,  ranking  him- 
self with  them  as  an  elder,  (1  Peter  v.  2,)  and  is 
9* 


98  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

language  which  would  not  suggest  the  idea  that 
there  was  a  superior  "grade"  of  ministers  over 
them,  and  which  would  not  have  been  used  if  there 
had  been  such  a  grade.  The  difficulty  implied  in 
the  use  of  this  word  here  by  Paul,  as  addressed  to 
the  elders  at  Ephesus,  has  been  felt  by  all  Episco- 
palians. Dr.  Onderdonk  (p.  24,)  asserts,  in  order 
to  meet  the  difficulty,  that  the  authority  of  the  elders 
at  Ephesus  extended  only  to  the  "laity"  or  church 
members,  while  Timothy,  their  Bishop,  had  author- 
ity over  the  clergy.  But  where  is  the  proof  of  this  ? 
No  such  intimation  is  found  in  the  address  of  Paul. 
The  authority  given  them  was  "to  feed,  rule,  or 
govern  the  church,^''  of  which  they  were  the  "  bish- 
ops'^— frttcJxortODj. 

Let  us  now  state  the  results  of  our  investigation, 
and  dispose  of  the  case  of  Timothy.  It  has  been 
shown,  that  he  was  not  an  apostle.  It  has  been  fur- 
ther shown,  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  was 
bishop  of  Ephesus.  We  have  thus  destroyed  the 
claim  of  the  permanency  of  the  apostolic  office,  so 
far  as  Timothy  is  concerned.  And  we  now  insist, 
that  they  who  wish  to  defend  Episcopacy  by 
"Scripture,"  should  read  the  two  epistles  to  Timo- 
thy, without  the  vain  and  illusory  supposition,  that 
he  was  bishop  of  Ephesus.  Agreeing  with  Dr. 
Onderdonk,  that  this  point  must  be  settled  by  the 
New  Testament,  and  that  "  no  argument  is  worth 
taking  into  the  account  which  has  not  a  palpable 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  99 

beaHng  on  the  clear  and  naked  topic — the  scrip- 
tural  evidence  of  Episcopacy,''''  (p.  3,)  it  is  main- 
tained that  those  epistles  should  be  read  without 
being  interpreted  by  the  unsupported  position,  that 
Timothy  was  the  permanent  prelate  of  Ephesus. 
With  this  matter  clear  before  us,  how  stands  the 
case  in  these  two  epistles  1     I  answer,  thus : — 

(1.)  Timothy  was  left  at  Ephesus  for  a  special 
purpose — to  allay  contentions,  and  prevent  the 
spreading  of  false  doctrine.  The  object  for  which 
he  was  left  there  is  so  explicitly  stated  that  there 
need  be  no  occasion  for  ambiguity  or  doubt.  1  Tim. 
i.  3,  4.  It  was  not  to  perform  the  rite  of  confirma- 
tion, nor  to  take  the  general  oversight  of  the 
churches,  nor  to  ordain  ministers,  nor  to  administer 
discipline.  None  of  these  things,  which  are  now 
understood  to  be  the  proper  functions  of  prelatical 
bishops,  are  alluded  to  or  hinted  at.  It  was  to  make 
use  of  his  influence,  under  the  authority  of  the  apos- 
tle, to  prevent  the  propagation  of  error,  and  to  main- 
tain the  truth — a  work  which  fell  in  with  the  proper 
functions  of  any  minister  of  the  gospel.  In  this, 
assuredly  there  was  nothing  that  claimed  peculiarly 
Episcopal  authority  and  rank,  for  it  is  not  even  now 
claimed  as  one  of  the  peculiar  rights  of  Episcopal 
bishops.  (2)  It  is  not  intimated  or  implied  in  the 
Epistles,  that  Timothy  was  ordained,  constituted,  or 
appointed  there  at  all.  The  language  is,  "  I  besought 
thee  to  abide  sl'ill  at  Ephesus  when  I  went  into  Ma- 


100  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

cedonia^  The  fact  in  the  case  was,  that  Paul 
and  Timothy  had  been  labouring  there  conjointly. 
Neither  of  them  was  bishop  of  the  place.  Paul  felt 
himself  called  on  to  go  to  Macedonia,  but  he  felt 
that  it  was  important  for  one  of  them  to  remain  there 
for  a  time,  and  he  "  besovghf^  Timothy  to  do  it. 
Had  it  not  been  for  this  request  of  Paul,  Timothy 
would  have  gone  with  him  as  a  matter  of  course. 
That  is,  if  he  was  the  "  bishop"  of  Ephesus,  he 
would  have  gone  off  with  the  apostle ;  would  have 
left  his  diocese;  would  have  travelled  to  another 
part  of  the  world;  and  it  was  only  by  the  earnest 
exhortation  of  the  apostle  Paul  that  this  "  prelate" 
was  induced  to  remain  and  attend  to  the  appropriate 
functions  of  his  Episcopate.  If  Timothy  was  such 
a  "  bishop"  as  this,  he  set  a  bad  example  to  his 
'  apostolical  successors.'  There  are  very  few  Pres- 
byterian pastors  who  would  have  needed  the  exhorta- 
tion of  an  apostle  to  remain  and  attend  to  the  proper 
duties  of  his  own  charge.  (3.)  This  arrangement, 
as  .appears  from  the  epistles  and  as  proved  above, 
was  to  be  temporary.  Thus  the  apostle  Paul  says 
that  he  left  him  there,  not  to  be  a  permanent  bishop 
of  the  church,  but  "  that  he  might  teach  some  that 
they  taught  no  other  doctrine."  So  far  as  the  terms 
of  this  commission  go,  as  soon  as  he  had  in  a 
proper  way  delivered  this  charge,  and  so  settled 
matters  that  there  would  not  be  danger  that  the 
erroneous  doctrine  would  be  taught,  he  would  be  at 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  1  0  1 

liberty  to  change  the  place  of  his  labour.  That  this 
was  designed  to  be  a  temporary  arrangement,  and 
not  a  permanent  appointment  to  the  office  of  a  pre- 
late, is  further  manifest  from  another  statement  in 
the  epistle  itself,  ch.  iii.  14,  15.  "These  things 
write  I  unto  thee,  hoping  to  come  unto  thee  shortly  : 
but  if  I  tarry  long,  that  thou  mayest  know  how  thou 
oughtest  to  behave  thyself  in  the  house  of  God." 
Here  it  is  evident  that,  whatever  was  the  cause  why 
the  apostle  was  separated  from  him  on  this  occa- 
sion, he  expected  that  cause  would  soon  cease,  and 
that  their  united  labours  would  soon  be  resumed  as 
before.  Timothy  was  young  and  inexperienced, 
and  Paul  gave  him  such  directions  as  would  aid 
him  in  the  work  which  was  for  a  time  entrusted  to 
him.  But  suppose  that  Timothy  was  the  permanent 
bishop  of  Ephesus.  How  incongruous  and  improper 
would  it  have  been  for  Paul  to  say  that  he  had  given 
him  instructions  that  would  be  adapted  to  direct  him 
during  his  own  temporary  absence,  and  that  he 
hoped  soon  to  return  to  him  again.  The  same  thing 
is  implied  in  ch.  iv.  13,  of  this  same  epistle.  "  Till 
I  come,  give  attendance  to  reading,  to  exhortation, 
to  doctrine."  Why  is  the  phrase  "  till  I  come"  in- 
serted, if  Timothy  was  the  established  prelatical 
bishop  over  Ephesus?  How  can  it  be  explained, 
except  on  the  supposition  that  Paul  regarded  their 
separation  as  temporary,  and  that  he  supposed  they 
would  again  resume  their  joint  labours  as  they  had 


102  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

done  before,  without  either  of  them  having  any  es- 
pecial jurisdiction  over  Ephesus  or  any  other  "  dio- 
cese?" (4.)  Timothy,  as  appears  from  the  Epistles, 
was  intrusted  with  the  right  of  ordination,  and  with 
the  authority  of  government  in  the  church,  just  as 
all  ministers  of  the  gospel  are.  He  is  charged,  in- 
deed, to  "lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man,"  (1  Tim. 
V.  22,)  to  "  commit  the  things  which  he  had  heard 
of  Paul  among  many  witnesses,  to  faithful  men  who 
should  be  able  to  teach  others  also,"  (2  Tim.  ii.  2 ;) 
to  "  put  the  brethren  in  remembrance  of  these 
things,"  (1  Tim.  iv.  6;)  to  "charge  some  that 
they  taught  no  other  doctrine,"  (1  Tim.  i.  3;)  not 
to  "receive  an  accusation  against  an  elder,  but 
before  two  or  three  witnesses,"  (1  Tim.  v.  19;)  and 
not  to  "  rebuke  an  elder,  but  to  entreat  him  as  a  fa- 
ther," (1  Tim.  V.  1.)  These  are  all  the  specifica- 
tions selected  by  Dr.  Onderdonk,  (p.  27,)  from  the 
epistles  to  Timothy,  and  are  all  which  they  con- 
tain, showing  that  Timothy  had  the  right  of  ordain- 
ing or  of  governing  the  church  entrusted  to  him  at 
all,  and  there  is  not  a  syllable  in  them  that  contains 
any  thing  peculiar  to  the  supposed  office  of  a  pre- 
latical  bishop,  or  that  implies  that  Timothy  had  any 
such  office.  They  are  just  such  directions  as  would 
be  given  to  any  minister  of  the  gospel  authorized  to 
preach,  to  ordain,  to  administer  the  ordinances  of 
the  church,  and  its  discipline — just  such  as  are 
given  now  to  men  who  hold  to  the  doctrine  of  min- 


OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  103 

isterial  parity.  The  "  charges"  which  are  given  to 
Presbyterian  and  Congregational  ministers  at  ordi- 
nation, are  ahnost  uniformly  couched  in  the  same 
language  which  is  used  by  Paul,  in  addressing  Tim- 
othy ;  nor  is  there  any  thing  in  those  epistles  which 
may  not  be,  and  which  is  not,  in  fact,  often  ad- 
dressed to  ministers  on  such  occasions.  With  just 
as  much  propriety  might  some  antiquarian,  here- 
after, some  future  advocate  for  Episcopacy,  collect 
together  the  charges  now  given  to  ministers,  and 
appeal  to  them  as  proof  that  the  churches  in  New 
England,  and  among  Presbyterians,  were  Episco- 
pal, as  to  appeal  now  to  the  epistles  to  Timothy, 
to  prove  that  he  was  a  prelate. 

(5.)  The  work  which  Timothy  was  to  perform, 
even  in  Ephesus,  is  accurately  defined.  *'  Watch  thou 
in  all  things ;  endure  afflictions ;  do  the  work  of  an  evan- 
gelist; make  full  proof  of  thy  ministry."  Here  Tim- 
othy is  expressly  addressed  as  an  evangelist.  This 
was  his  appropriate  business ;  this  his  office.  There 
is  no  instruction  to  him  at  all  to  exercise  any  of  the 
peculiar  functions  of  a  prelatical  bishop;  there  is, 
that  he  should  be  faithful  in  performing  the  work  of 
an  evangelist.  How  remarkable  if  he  was  a  "  suc- 
cessor" of  the  apostles  in  the  peculiarity  of  their 
office,  that  the  apostle  should  limit  his  instructions 
to  his  faithfully  performing  the  comparatively  hum- 
ble duties  of  an  evangelist ! 

(6.)  The  epistles  themselves  contain  evidence  of 


104        ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

the  falsehood  of  the  supposition,  that  there  was  an 
order  of  men  superior  to  the  presbyters  in  "  ministe- 
rial powers  and  rights."  There  are  but  two  orders 
of  ministers  spoken  of,  or  alluded  to,  in  them, — 
bishops  and  deacons.  Let  the  emphatic  remark  of 
Dr.  Onderdonk  here  be  borne  in  mind,  p.  12 : 
"  All  that  we  read  in  the  New  Testament  con- 
cerning '  bishops,'  is  to  be  regarded  as  pertaining 
to  the  '  middle  grade  ;'  "  i.  e.  nothing  in  these  epis- 
tles or  elsewhere,  where  this  term  is  used,  has  any 
reference  to  a  rank  of  ministers  superior  "  in  mi- 
nisterial powers  and  rights."  The  case  here,  then, 
by  the  supposition  of  the  Episcopalians,  is  this. 
Two  epistles  are  addressed  by  an  apostle  to  a  suc- 
cessor of  the  apostles,  designated  as  such,  and 
where  both  intended  to  retain  and  perpetuate  the 
same  rank  and  powers.  Those  epistles  are  designed 
to  instruct  him  in  the  organization  and  government 
of  the  churches.  They  contain  ample  information, 
and  somewhat  protracted  discussions  on  the  follow- 
ing topics :  The  office  of  a  presbyter.  The  quali- 
fications for  that  office.  The  office  of  the  deacons. 
The  qualifications  for  that  office.  The  qualifications 
of  deacons'  wives.  1  Tim.  iii.  The  proper  disci- 
pline of  an  elder.  The  qualifications  of  those  who 
were  to  be  admitted  to  the  office  of  deaconesses. 
1  Tim.  V.  The  duties  of  masters  and  servants. 
1  Tim.  vi.  The  duties  of  laymen.  1  Tim.  ii.  8. 
The  duties  of  Christian  females.  1  Tim.  ii.  9 — 11. 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  105 

Nay,  they  contain  directions  about  the  apostle's 
cloak,  and  parchments,  (2  Tim.  iv.  13;)  but,  from 
the  beginning  to  the  end,  not  one  single  syllable 
occurs  respecting  the  existence  of  a  grade  of  offi- 
cers in  the  church  superior  "  in  ministerial  rights 
and  powers  ;"  not  a  word  about  their  qualifications, 
of  the  mode  of  ordaining  or  consecrating  them,  or 
of  Timothy's  fraternal  intercourse  with  his  brother 
prelates ;  nothing  about  the  subjection  of  the  priest- 
hood to  them,  or  of  their  peculiar  functions  of  con- 
firmation, and  superintendence.  In  one  word,  taking 
these  epistles  by  themselves,  no  man  would  dream 
that  there  were  any  such  officers  in  existence.  I 
ask,  now,  whether  any  candid  reader  of  the  New 
Testament  can  believe  that  there  were  any  such  of- 
ficers, and  that  two  epistles  could  have  been  written 
in  these  circumstances,  without  the  sZi^A^t's^  allusion 
to  their  existence  or  powers  ?  "  Credat  Judceus 
Apella."  Can  there  be  found  now  among  all  the 
charges  which  Episcopal  bishops  have  given  to 
their  clergy,  any  two  in  which  there  shall  not  be 
found  some  allusion  to  the  "  primitive  and  apostolic 
order"  of  bishops  in  the  churches  ?  It  remains  for 
our  eyes  to  be  blessed  with  the  sight  of  one  Epis- 
copal charge,  reminding  us  in  this  respect  of  the 
charges  of  Paul  to  Timothy. 

(7.)  One  other  consideration  may  be  added  here, 
which  is  conclusive   as   to  the   question  whether 
Timothy  was  the  permanent  prelatical  bishop  of 
10 


106  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

Ephesus.  It  is,  that  it  is  certain  that  he  did  nat 
remain  permanently  in  that  city.  The  only  evi- 
dence that  he  was  ever  there  at  all  is  the  statement 
of  Paul,  that  he  left  him  there  for  a  temporary  pur- 
pose; and  there  is  the  most  conclusive  proof  that 
he  did  not  long  remain  there.  He  was  with  the 
apostle  at  Rome  during  his  first  imprisonment,  and 
united  with  him  in  the  letters  to  the  Colossians,  Phi- 
lippians,  and  to  Philemon.  Col.  i.  1.  Phil.  i.  1.  Phile. 
1.  He  was  with  him  in  Corinth  when  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  was  written.  Rom.  xvi.  21.  comp.  ch. 
xvi.  1.  23.  2  Tim.  iv.  20.  He  had  been  recently 
imprisoned,  probably  at  Rome,  when  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  was  written.  Heb.  xiii.  23.  There  is 
proof  that  he  was  not  at  Ephesus  when  the  Second 
Epistle  to  him  was  written,  for  in  ch.  iv.  12,  Paul 
informs  him  that  he  "  had  sent  Tychicus  to  Ephe- 
sus,"— a  kind  of  information  which  Paul  would  not 
have  given  if  Timothy  had  been  there  himself  at 
the  time — and  from  the  following  verse  it  is  evident 
that  at  the  time  when  this  epistle  was  written  Timo- 
thy was  supposed  to  be  at  Troas.  "  The  cloak 
which  I  left  at  Troas,  when  thou  comesty  bring  with 
thee."  How  little  does  all  this  look  as  if  Timothy 
were  the  permanent  bishop  of  Ephesus !  A  man 
who  is  never  mentioned  as  being  there  but  once,  and 
then  expressly  for  a  temporary  purpose ;  who  re- 
ceived no  charge,  even  in  a  letter  addressed  to  him 
there,  but  such  as  might  be  given  to  any  minister  of 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  107 

the  gospel ;  who  is  repeatedly  mentioned  as  being, 
elsewhere,  united  with  Paul  in  his  toils  and  trials  ; 
and  of  whom  there  is  no  intimation  that  he  ever  did 
return,  or  ever  would  return,  for  any  purpose  what- 
ever !  Such  is  the  strong  case  on  which  so  much 
reliance  is  placed  in  sustaining  the  enormous  fabric 
of  Episcopacy  in  the  world  ! 

We  may  now  take  our  leave  of  the  case  of  Ti- 
mothy. The  case  of  Titus,  the  next  in  order,  can 
be  despatched  in  fewer  words.  The  argument  of 
Dr.  Onderdonk,  in  defence  of  the  claim  respecting 
Titus,  does  not  vary  materially  from  that  used  in 
reference  to  Timothy,  p.  26.  It  is,  that  he  was  left 
in  Crete  to  ordain  elders  in  every  city,  and  that  the 
powers  of  "  ordination,  admonition,  and  rejection, 
are  all  committed  to  Titus  personally."  Titus  i. 
6 — 9  ;  iii.  10.  The  only  point  here  which  requires 
a  moment's  examination,  in  addition  to  what  has 
been  said  on  the  case  of  Timothy,  is  the  purpose 
for  which  he  was  left  at  Crete.  Titus  i.  5,  "  For 
this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldst  set 
in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain 
elders  in  every  city  as  I  have  appointed  thee." 
The  claim  of  Episcopalians  here  is,  that  this  indi- 
cates such  a  perseverance  in  the  "  distinction  be- 
tween elders  and  a  grade  superior  to  them,"  as  to 
prove  that  it  was  "  to  be  a  permanent  arrangement." 
p.  23.  In  other  words,  Titus  was  to  be  a  perma- 
nent bishop  of  Crete,  superior  to  the  elders  "  in 


i08  OROANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

ministerial  rights  and  powers."  This  claim  it  is 
necessary  for  them  to  establish  from  the  New  Tes- 
tament. If  there  are  any  intimations  that  it  was 
not  designed  to  be  permanent^  they  will  be  fatal  to 
the  argument.  We  affirm,  then,  in  opposition  to 
this  claim,  that  the  case  is  fully  met  by  the  suppo- 
sition that  Titus,  in  Crete,  was  an  extraordinary 
officer,  like  Timothy,  at  Ephesus,  appointed  for  a 
specific  purpose.  For,  1.  The  appointment  itself 
looks  as  if  this  was  the  design.  Paul  had  himself 
commenced  a  work  there,  which,  from  some  cause, 
he  was  unable  to  complete.  That  work  he  left 
Titus  to  finish.  As  it  cannot  be  pretended,  that 
Paul  had  any  purpose  of  becoming  the  permanent 
bishop  of  Crete,  so  it  cannot  be  that  Titus's  being 
left  to  complete  what  Paul  had  begun,  is  proof  that 
he  expected  that  Titus  would  be  permanent  bishop. 
An  appointment  to  complete  a  work  which  is  begun 
by  another,  when  the  original  designer  did  not  con- 
template a  permanent  employment,  cannot  surely 
be  adduced  in  proof  of  a  permanent  office.  If  I 
am  employed  to  complete  an  edifice  which  is  com- 
menced, it  does  not  suppose  that  I  am  to  labour  at  it 
all  my  life ;  still  less,  that  I  am  to  have  successors 
in  the  undertaking.  This  passage,  to  most  unbi- 
assed minds,  would  imply  that  Paul  expected  Titus, 
after  having  completed  what  he  had  left  him  to  do, 
to  leave  the  island  of  Crete,  and  accompany  him  in 
his  travels.    2.  That  this  was  the  fact ;  that  he  had 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  1 09 

no  expectation  that  Titus  would  be  a  permanent 
bishop  of  Crete,  superior  in  "  ministerial  rights  and 
powers,"  is  perfectly  apparent  from  the  direction  in 
this  same  epistle,  ch.  iii.  12.  "When  I  shall  send 
Artemas  unto  thee,  or  Tychicus,  6^;  diligent  to  come 
unto  me  at  Nicopolis."  Here  we  find  conclusive 
proof,  that  the  arrangement  respecting  Titus  in 
Crete  was  designed  to  be  temporary.  To  suppose 
the  contrary,  is  to  maintain  a  position  in  the  very 
face  of  the  directions  of  the  apostle.  Every  thing 
in  the  case  shows,  that  he  was  an  extraordinary 
officer,  appointed  for  a  specific  purpose ;  and  that 
when  that  work  was  effected,  which  the  apostle 
supposed  would  be  soon,  he  was  to  resume  his  sta- 
tion as  his  travelling  companion  and  fellow  labourer. 
3.  That  tbis  was  the  general  character  of  Titus ; 
that  he  was  regarded  by  Paul  as  his  companion,  and 
as  a  very  valuable  assistant  to  him  in  his  travels,  is 
further  apparent  from  2  Cor.  ii.  12, 13 ;  vi.  6 — 13. 
In  the  former  of  these  passages  he  says,  that  he 
expected  to  meet  him  at  Troas,  and  intimates  that 
bis  presence  and  help  were  very  necessary  for  him. 
"  When  I  came  to  Troas  to  preach  Christ's  gospel, 
and  a  door  was  opened  unto  me  of  the  Lord,  I  had 
no  rest  in  my  spirit,  because  I  found  not  Titus  my 
brother."  In  the  latter  place,  (2  Cor.  vii.  6—13,) 
we  find  him  the  companion  of  the  apostle  Paul,  in 
Philippi.  "  Therefore  we  were  comforted  in  your 
comfort ;  yea,  and  exceedingly  the  more  joyed  we 
10* 


110        ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

for  the  joy  of  Titus,  because  his  spirit  was  refreshed 
by  you  all."  Again,  (2  Cor.  xii.  18,)  we  find  him 
employed  on  a  special  embassy  to  the  church  in 
Corinth,  in  respect  to  the  collection  for  the  poor 
saints  at  Jerusalem.  "  I  desired  Titus,"  [that  is,  to 
go  to  them  to  receive  the  collection  for  the  poor 
saints  at  Jerusalem,]  "  and  with  him  I  sent  a  bro- 
ther. Did  Titus  make  a  gain  of  you  ?"  Comp.  Rom. 
XV.  26.  And  again  we  find  him  on  a  mission  to 
Dalmatia,  2  Tim.  iv.  10.  "  Demas  hath  forsaken 
me,  having  loved  this  present  world,  and  is  departed 
unto  Thessalonica ;  Crescens  to  Galatia,  Titus  unto 
Dalmatia."  Assuredly  these  various  migrations 
and  employments  do  not  appear  as  if  he  was  de- 
signed by  the  apostle  to  be  the  permanent  prelatical 
bishop  of  Crete.  4.  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  Ti- 
tus regarded  the  apostolic  mandate  (Titus  iii.  12 ;) 
that  he  left  Crete  in  accordance  with  Paul's  request ; 
and  as  there  is  no  intimation  in  the  New  Testament 
that  he  ever  returned  there,  and  as  indeed  there  is 
not  the  slightest  proof  any  where  that  he  perma- 
nently resided  there,  or  that  he  died  there,  we  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  he  was  employed  for  a  tem- 
porary purpose,  and  that  having  accomplished  it,  he 
resumed  his  situation  as  the  companion  of  Paul. 
Comp.  Gal.  ii.  1.  It  must  be  admitted,  on  all  hands, 
that  the  Episcopalian  cannot  prove  the  contrary. 
Since,  moreover,  our  supposition  meets  all  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case,  and  we  are  able  to  show 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  1  1  1 

that  this  was  the  general  cliaracter  of  the  labours 
of  Titus,  we  may  dismiss  his  case  also. 

The  last  argument  of  Episcopalians  to  prove  the 
"  apostolical  succession"  is  derived  from  the  epistles 
to  the  several  churches  of  Asia.  Rev.  ii.  iii.  This 
argument  is  embodied  in  the  following  position  : 
"  Each  of  those  churches  is  addressed,  not  through 
its  clergy  at  large,  but  through  its  '  angel,'  or 
chief  officer ;  this  alone  is  a  very  strong  argument 
against  parity  in  favour  of  Episcopacy."  "  One 
of  those  churches  is  Ephesus ;  and  when  we  read 
concerning  its  angel,  '  thou  hast  tried  them  which 
say  they  are  apostles,  and  are  not,  and  hast  found 
them  liars,'  do  we  require  further  evidence  that 
what  Timothy,  the  chief  officer  there,  was  in  the 
year  65,  in  regard  to  the  supreme  right  of  disci- 
pline over  the  clergy,  the  same  was  its  chief  officer 
when  this  book  was  written,  in  96  ?"  The  singular 
number,  it  is  added,  is  used  emphatically  in  the  ad- 
dress to  each  of  the  angels,  and  "  the  individual 
called  '  the  angel,'  is,  in  each  case,  identified  with 
his  church,  and  his  church  with  him."  pp.  27,  28. 

This  is  the  argument ;  and  this  is  the  whole  of 
it,  as  stated  by  Dr.  Onderdonk. 

The  force  of  this  argument  can  be  founded  only 
on  the  supposition  that  the  epistles  to  those  churches 
are  addressed  to  an  individual  cuWeA  "  the  angel  of 
the  church ;"  and  that  this  individual  could  be  no 
other  than  a  prelatical  bishop.     It  is  indispensable 


112  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

that  each  of  these  points  should  be  made  out,  or 
the  argument  is  worthless.  It  will  not  do  to  argue 
that  because  Timothy  was  once  left  by  Paul  in 
Ephesus,  in  the  year  "  65,"  that  therefore  there 
was  a  "  bishop"  there  in  "  96."  We  have  seen 
that  Timothy  did  not  long  remain  there ;  that  he 
was  subsequently  with  the  apostle  Paul ;  and  there 
is  not  the  slightest  intimation  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment that  in  that  interval  of  thirty-one  years  a 
"  successor"  was  appointed.  Whence  then  is  the 
ground  of  the  inference  that  thirty-one  years  after- 
wards this  individual,  addressed  as  "  the  angel  of 
the  church,"  was  the  "  successor"  of  Timothy  ? — 
The  argument  from  the  "angels"  of  the  seven 
churches,  so  strenuously  urged  and  defended  by 
Episcopalians,  involves  also  the  following  assump- 
tions ; — 

(1.)  That  there  was  an  inferior  body  of  clergy- 
men, called  here  "  clergy  at  large."  Assuming  this 
point,  it  would  not  te  difficult  to  make  out  an  argu- 
ment from  the  address  "  to  the  angel."  But  this  is 
a  point  to  he  proved,  not  to  be  assumed.  Where  is 
there  found,  in  the  New  Testament,  an  intimation 
of  the  existence  of  an  order  of  "  clergy  at  large^'' 
in  these  churches?  In  the  epistles  themselves, 
there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  of  the  existence  of 
any  such  personages  distinct  from  "the  angels." 
Nay,  the  very  style  of  address  is  strong  presump- 
tion that  there  were  not  any  such  inferior  clergy- 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCII.  1  1  3 

men.  Thr  only  mention  which  occurs,  is  of  the 
angel  and  the  church.  Wc  hear  nothing  of  an  in- 
termediate order ;  nothing  of  any  supremacy  of 
"  the  angel"  over  "  the  clergy  at  large ;"  not  the 
least  intimation  of  any  duty  to  be  performed  by  the 
supposed  prelatical  "  angel,"  towards  the  inferior 
presbyters.  Why  is  all  reference  to  them  omitted, 
if  they  had  any  existence  ?  Is  it  customary  in  ad- 
dressing "  bishops"  now^  to  omit  all  reference  to 
their  duties  over  the  inferior  "clergy  at  large?" 
This  is  a  point  of  too  much  consequence  to  be  left 
unguarded ;  and  accordingly  the  rights  and  duties 
of  the  order  which  is  regarded  as  superior  "  in 
ministerial  rights  and  powers,"  are  sedulously  mark- 
ed out  and  inculcated. 

(2.)  It  must  be  assumed,  in  this  argument,  that 
there  were  in  each  of  those  cities  more  churches 
than  one  ;  that  there  was  a  circle,  or  confederation 
of  churches,  which  would  answer  to  the  modern  no- 
tion of  a  "  diocese,"  over  which  "  the  clergy  at 
large"  of  inferior  "  ministerial  rights  and  pow- 
ers," might  exercise  a  modified  jurisdiction.  If  this 
is  not  assumed,  the  argument  has  no  force ;  since  if 
there  were  but  one  church  in  each  of  those  cities, 
the  "  angel"  was  not  a  bishop  in  the  Episcopal 
sense,  but  a  pastor  in  the  ordinary  acceptation. 
Now  this  is  a  point,  which,  in  an  argument  like 
this,  should  not  be  assumed.  It  should  be  proved, 
or  at  least  rendered  highly  probable  from  the  New 


114  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

Testament.  But  there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  of 
any  such  divided  and  scattered  diocesan  organiza- 
tion. In  each  instance,  the  church  is  addressed  as 
one,  and  undivided.  "  The  angel  of  the  church,^'' — 
not  the  churches — "of  Ephesus."  Rev.  ii.  1. 
"  The  angel  o^the  church  in  Smyrna ;"  ii.  8  :  "  the 
angel  of  the  church  at  Thyatira ;"  ii.  18  :  the  angel 
of  the  church  in  Sardis;"  iii.  1,  &c.  In  every 
instance  the  address  is  the  same.  The  point  of 
inquiry  now  is,  whether  in  this  address  the  Saviour 
meant  to  intimate  that  there  was  a  plurality  of 
churches — an  ecclesiastical,  diocesan  organization? 
This  is  a  point  for  Episcopalians  to  prove,  not  to 
assume.  Light  may  be  thrown  on  it  by  comparing 
it  with  other  places  where  a  church  is  spoken  of. 
The  presumption  is  directly  against  the  Episcopa- 
lians. It  is,  that  the  apostles  would  not  organize 
separate  churches  in  a  single  city ;  and  that  if  it 
were  done,  they  would  be  specified  as  the  churches. 
Accordingly,  we  learn  that  the  apostle  organized 
"  a  church"  at  Corinth.  1  Cor.  i.  1,  2.  Thus,  also, 
at  Antioch.  Acts  xiii.  1.  Thus,  also,  at  Laodicea. 
Col.  iv.  16.  And  in  the  address  of  Paul  to  the 
elders  at  Miletus  respecting  one  of  the  very  churches 
under  consideration,  that  at  Ephesus,  it  is  mention- 
ed, not  as  the  churches  of  Ephesus,  but  as  the 
church.  Acts  xx.  28.  "  Feed  the  church  of  God 
which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood." 
When  Paul  addressed  this  same  church  in  an  epis- 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  1  1 5 

tie,  it  was  directed,  not  to  the  churches,  but  to  the 
saints  at  Ephesus.  Eph.  i.  1.  But  where  there  were 
distinct  churches  organized,  there  is  a  specijic  men- 
tion of  the  fact  of  the  plurality.  Thus,  Acts  xv. 
41,  "  Paul  went  through  Syria  confirming  (i.  e. 
strengthening,  establishing)  the  churches:"  Rom. 
xvi.  4,  "  the  churches  of  the  Gentiles  :"  1  Cor. 
xvi.  1,  "the  churches  of  Galatia:"  19,  "the 
churches  of  Asia :"  2  Cor.  viii.  1,  "the  churches 
in  Macedonia."  See  also,  2  Cor.  viii.  19,  23  ;  xi. 
8 ;  Gal.  i.  22 ;  Rev.  i.  4.  Now  if  it  is  neither 
proved  that  there  was  a  body  of  "  clergy  at  large," 
nor  that  there  were  separate  churches  in  each  of 
those  cities ;  I  ask,  what  is  the  force  of  the  argu- 
ment from  this  case  ?  How  does  it  bear  on  the 
point  at  issue  1  What  has  it  to  do  with  the  sub- 
ject? 

(3.)  A  third  assumption,  which  is  identified  with 
supposing  that  this  argument  is  of  any  force  is,  that 
a  "  successor"  to  John  himself  had  already  been 
appointed  at  Ephesus,  and  had  taken  his  place. 
John  passed  a  large  part  of  his  long  life  there.  It 
was  from  Ephesus  that  he  was  banished  to  Patmos. 
If  there  was  a  prelate  at  Ephesus,  it  is  morally  cer- 
tain that  John  was  himself  the  man.  Indeed  it  is 
inconceivable,  almost,  that  any  other  should  have 
been  raised  to  the  Episcopal  "  throne"  in  Ephesus, 
while  John  was  himself  there,  or  should  have  the 
right  to  the  peculiar  title  of  "/Ae  angel"  of  the 


116  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

church.  It  is  equally  improbable  that  in  the  brief 
interval  between  the  banishment  of  the  apostle  and 
the  time  of  addressing  those  epistles  to  the  churches 
in  the  Book  of  Revelation,  another  person  should 
have  been  appointed  to  supercede  the  exiled  apostle. 
And  it  is  equally  improbable  that,  if  it  had  been  so, 
no  special  allusion  should  have  been  made  to  this 
circumstance  in  the  letter  addressed  to  the  church 
at  Ephcsus.  All  these  circumstances  are  so  re- 
markable as  to  render  it  morally  certain  that  no 
such  individual  as  a  "  prelatical  bishop,"  or  a  "  suc- 
cessor of  the  apostles"  was  addressed  under  the 
title  of  "  the  angel  of  the  church." 

In  reference  to  the  term  "  angel,"  as  used  in  the 
Apocalypse,  I  have  only  to  remark,  further,  that 
the  interpretation  which  makes  it  refer  to  a  prelati- 
cal bishop,  is  so  unnatural  and  forced,  that  many 
Episcopalians  are  compelled  to  abandon  it.  Thus 
Stillingfleet,  than  whom  an  abler  man,  and  one 
whose  praise  is  higher  in  Episcopal  churches,  is  not 
to  be  found  among  the  advocates  of  prelacy,  says, 
of  these  angels  :\"  if  many  things  in  the  epistles  be 
directed  to  the  angels,  but  yet  so  as  to  concern  the 
whole  body,  then,  of  necessity,  the  angel  must  be 
taken  as  a  representative  of  the  whole  body;  and 
then,  why  may  not  the  word  angel  be  taken  by  way 
of  representation  of  the  body  itself,  either  of  the 
whole  church,  or,  which  is  far  more  probable,  of 
i\iQ  concessorsy  or  order  of  presbyters,  in  that  church? 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  1  1 7 

We  see  what  miserable,  imaccounfablc  arguments 
those  are  which  are  brought  for  any  kind  of  go- 
vernment from  metaphorical  or  ambiguous  expres- 
sions, or  names  promiscuously  used."     Irenicum. 

With  one  or  two  additional  remarks,  I  shall  dis- 
miss this  point.  The  first  is,  that  it  cannot  be  argued 
from  the  term  angel,  given  to  those  ministers,  that 
they  were  Episcopal  bishops.  That  term,  as  is 
well  known,  has  no  exclusive  applicability  to  a  pre- 
late. It  is  no  where  else  applied  to  the  ministers  of 
religion;  and  its  original  signification,  "  a  messen- 
ger," or  its  usual  application  to  celestial  spirits,  has 
no  special  adaptedness  to  an  Episcopal  bishop. 
Without  any  invidiousness  it  may  be  observed,  that 
prelates  have  not  usually  evinced  any  such  extra- 
ordinary sanctity  as  to  appropriate  this  title  to  them- 
selves by  prescriptive  right.  The  other  remark  is, 
that  the  supposition  that  these  angels  were  pastors 
of  the  churches — presbyters  on  a  parity  with  each 
other,  and  with  all  others — will  fully  meet  every 
thing  which  is  said  of  them  in  the  book  of  Revelation. 
This  supposition,  too,  will  meet  the  addresses  made 
to  them  better  than  the  assumption  that  they  were 
prelates.  Their  union  to  the  church,  as  Dr.  On- 
derdonk  remarks,  is  intimate.  "  The  angel  is  in 
each  case  identified  with  his  church,  and  his  church 
with  him."  Now  to  which  does  this  remark  best 
apply ;  to  the  tender,  intimate,  endearing  relation  of 
a  pastor  with  his  people;  to  the  blending  of  sympa- 
11 


118        ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

thy,  interest,  and  affection,  where  he  is  with  them 
continually,  meets  them  each  week  in  the  sanctuary, 
administers  to  them  the  bread  of  life,  goes  into  their 
abodes  when  they  are  afflicted,  and  attends  their 
kindred  to  the  grave ;  or  does  it  best  apply  to  the 
union  subsisting  between  the  people  of  an  extended 
diocese  and  a  prelate — to  the  formal,  unfrequent, 
and,  in  many  instances,  stately  and  pompous  visita- 
tions of  a  diocesan  bishop ;  to  the  cold  and  distant 
connection  between  a  people  scattered  into  many 
churches,  who  are  visited  at  intervals  of  a  year  or 
more  by  one  claiming  "  a  superiority  in  ministerial 
rights  and  powers,"  robed  in  lawn,  and  with  the 
crosier  and  mitre,  as  emblematical  of  office,  state, 
and  power,  and  one  who  must  be  a  stranger  to  the 
ten  thousand  tender  ties  of  endearment  which  bind 
the  hearts  of  a  pastor  and  his  people  together?  To 
all  others  but  Episcopalians,  it  seems  clear  that  the 
account  which  Dr.  Onderdonk  has  given  of  the 
"  identity"  of  the  angel  of  the  church,  applies  to  the 
former,  and  not  to  the  latter.  It  speaks  the  senti- 
ments of  our  hearts,  as  respects  the  union  of  a  pas- 
tor and  people.  And  while  we  would  not  allow  our- 
selves to  speak  with  disrespect  of  the  Episcopal 
office,  we  still  feel  that  the  language  of  the  Saviour, 
addressed  through  the  mild  and  gentle  John  to  the 
churches  of  Asia,  breathes  far  more  of  the  endearing 
"  identity"  of  the  pastoral  relation,  than  it  does  of 
the  comparatively  cold,  and  distant  functions  of  one, 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  1  1 9 

who,  in  all  other  lands  but  this,  has  been  invested 
with  his  office  by  the  imposing  ceremony  of  en- 
throning, and  who  has  borne,  less  as  badges  of 
affection  than  of  authority,  the  crosier  and  the 
mitre. 

We  have  now  considered  all  that  Episcopalians 
rely  on  from  the  Scriptures,  in  vindication  of  the 
existence  of  such  an  order  of  men.  It  will  be  re- 
membered that  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on  them. 
They  advance  a  claim  which  is  indispensable  to  the 
existence  of  their  ecclesiastical  polity.  These  are 
the  arguments  on  which  they  rely.  Whether 
these  arguments  authorize  the  tone  of  assumption 
which  we  sometimes  hear;  whether  they  are  such 
as  to  justify  the  advocates  of  prelacy  in  the  language 
which  they  sometimes  use  when  speaking  of  those 
out  of  the  pale  of  their  denomination,  as  left  to  "the 
uncovenanted  mercies  of  God ;"  whether  they  are 
such  as  to  prompt,  legitimately,  to  a  very  frequent 
reference  to  "  the  primitive  and  apostolic  order"  of 
the  ministry,  or  to  the  modest  use  of  the  term  "  the 
Church"  with  an  exclusive  reference  to  themselves, 
must  now  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  my  readers. 

The  point  which  I  proposed  to  consider  in  regard 
to  the  claims  of  their  "  bishop,"  I  conceive  to  be 
settled.  If  Episcopalians  cannot  make  good  their 
pretensions  in  reference  to  this  ofiice,  it  follows  of 
course  that  ministers  are  on  an  equality.  The 
whole  argument  is  concentrated  in  this  claim.    We 


120  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

take  our  stand  here.  It  is  admitted  on  all  hands, 
that  there  is  somewhere  in  the  church  a  right  to 
ordain.  Episcopalians,  with  singular  boldness,  in 
not  a  few  instances  with  professed,  and  in  all  with 
real,  exclusiveness,  maintain  that  this  power  lies 
only  in  the  bishop.  They  advance  a  claim  to  cer- 
tain rights  and  powers;  and  if  that  is  not  made 
out,  the  argument  is  at  an  end.  If  from  the  author- 
ity of  the  New  Testament,  they  cannot  succeed 
in  dividing  the  ministers  of  religion  into  various 
ranks  and  orders,  it  follows  that  they  remain  on  an 
equality. 

On  this  point,  also,  they  are  compelled,  as  we 
conceive  to  admit  the  whole  of  our  argument.  So 
manifest  is  it  that  the  sacred  writers  knew  of  no 
such  distinction ;  that  they  regarded  all  ministers  of 
the  gospel  as  on  a  level ;  that  they  used  the  same 
name  in  describing  the  functions  of  all ;  that  they 
addressed  all  as  having  the  same  episcopal,  or  pas- 
toral supervision,  that  even  Episcopalians,  after  no 
small  reluctance,  are  compelled  at  last  to  admit  it. 
They  are  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  the  term 
bishop  in  the  New  Testament,  does  not  in  a  single 
instance  designate  any  such  officer  as  now  claims 
exclusively  that  title.  Thus  Dr.  Onderdonk  says, 
that  "  that  name  (bishop)  is  there,  (i.  e.  in  the  New 
Testament,)  given  to  the  middle  order  or  presby- 
ters; and  ALL  that  we  read  in  the  New  Testament 
concerning  '  bishops,^  (^including  of  course  the  words 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  ClIURril.  1  2  1 

^overseers,''  and  ^ oversight,^  which  have  the  same 
derivation,)  is  to  be  regarded  as  pertaining  to  that 
middle  grade.  It  was  after  the  apostolic  age  that 
the  name  '  bishop^  was  taken  from  the  second  order, 
and  appropriated  to  the  first.''''  p.  12.  This  admis- 
sion  is  of  inestimable  value.  So  we  believe ;  and  so 
we  teach.  We  insist,  therefore,  that  the  name  bishop 
should  be  restored  to  its  primitive  standing.  If  men 
lay  claim  to  a  higher  rank  than  is  properly  ex- 
pressed in  the  New  Testament  by  this  word,  we  in- 
sist that  they  should  assume  the  name  apostles.  As 
they  regard  themselves  as  the  "  successors"  of  the 
apostles ;  as  they  claim  that  Timothy,  Titus,  Andron- 
icus,  and  Junia,  were  apostles,  why  should  not  the 
name  be  retained  ?  The  Christian  community  could 
then  better  appreciate  the  force  of  their  claims,  and 
understand  the  nature  of  the  argument.  I  venture 
to  say,  that  if  the  name  "  apostles"  were  assumed 
by  those  who  claim  to  be  their  successors,  the 
Christian  world  would  soon  disabuse  itself  of  the 
belief  of  the  Scriptural  authority  of  any  such  class 
of  men.  We  admit  that  if  "  the  thing  sought,"  (p. 
12,)  were  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures,  it  would 
not  be  worth  while  to  engage  in  a  controversy  about 
the  mere  name.  But  we  maintain  that  the  fact  here 
conceded  is  strong  presumptive  proof  that  "  the 
thing  sought"  is  not  there.  The  name^  therefore, 
should  be  given  up,  for  it  is  conceded  by  Episcopa- 
lians, that  it  does  not  any  where  in  the  New  Testa- 
11* 


122  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

merit  designate  any  such  class  of  men  as  are  now 
clothed  with  the  Episcopal  office. 

I  remark  further,  that  the  tiling  itself  is  practi- 
cally abandoned  by  Episcopalians  themselves.  If 
other  denominations  can  be  true  churches,  (see  the 
remark  on  p.  6,  that  the  Episcopal  claims  do  not 
"  unchurch  all  non-Episcopal  denominations,")  then 
their  ministers  can  be  true  ministers,  and  their  ordi- 
nances valid  ordinances.  Their  ministers  may  be 
ordained  without  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  "  a 
bishop;"  and  thus  the  whole  claim  is  abandoned. 
For  what  constitutes  "  non-Episcopal  denomina- 
tions" churches,  unless  they  have  a  valid  ministry, 
and  valid  ordinances'?  Still  further.  Even  ordina- 
tion is  never  performed  in  the  Episcopal  church  by 
the  "  bishop"  alone.  In  the  "  Form  and  manner  of 
Ordering  Priests,"  the  following  direction  is  given. 
*'  The  bishop  with  the  priests  [presbyters]  present, 
shall  lay  their  hands  severally  upon  the  head  of 
every  one  that  receiveth  the  order  of  priesthood; 
the  receivers  humbly  kneeling,  and  the  bishop  say- 
ing: Receive  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  the  office  and 
work  of  a  priest  in  the  church  of  God  now  com- 
mitted unto  thee  by  the  imposition  of  our  hands^ 
There  is  indeed  among  them  a  difference  of  opinion 
about  the  reason  why  this  is  done.  One  portion 
regards  the  bishop  as  the  only  source  of  authority,* 

*  Hooker's  Eccl.  Pol.  book  vii.  §  6. 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  123 

Others  suppose  that  the  presence  and  act  of  the 
presbyters  express  the  assent  and  confidence  of  the 
churches.  But,  whichever  opinion  is  maintained, 
it  is,  in  fact,  a  Presbyterian  ordination.  If  not,  it  is 
an  unmeaning  and  idle  ceremony,  and  the  presence 
of  the  presbyters  is  mere  pageantry  and  pomp. 

Who  can  resist  the  impression  that  if  the  New 
Testament  had  been  the  only  authority  appealed  to 
in  other  times,  Episcopacy  would  long  since  have 
ceased  to  urge  its  claims,  and  have  sunk  away  with 
other  dynasties  and  dominations  from  the  notice  of 
mankind?  On  the  basis  which  has  been  now  ex- 
amined, this  vast  superstructure — this  system  which 
has  heretofore  spread  over  the  entire  Christian  world 
— this  system  which  has  always  advanced  most  ar- 
rogant claims,  has  been  reared.  The  world,  for 
ages,  has  been  summoned  to  submit  to  various  modi- 
fications of  the  Episcopal  power.  The  world,  with 
the  single  exceptions  of  the  Waldenses  and  Albi- 
genses,  did  for  ages  submit  to  its  authority.  The 
prelatical  domination  rose  on  the  ruins  of  the  liber- 
ties of  cities,  states,  and  nations,  till  the  power  of 
the  whole  Christian  world  was  concentrated  in  the 
hands  of  one  man — "  the  servant  of  the  servants  of 
GodP^  The  exercise  of  that  power  in  his  hands  is 
well  known.  Equally  arrogant  have  been  its  claims 
in  other  modifications.  That  power  was  felt  in  the 
days  when  Puritan  piety  rose  to  bless  mankind,  and 
to  advance  just  notions  of  civil  and  religious  liberty. 


124        ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

Streams  of  blood  have  flowed,  and  tears  of  anguish 
have  been  shed,  and  thousands  of  holy  men  have 
been  doomed  to  poverty,  want,  and  imprisonment, 
as  the  result  of  those  claims  to  supremacy  in  the 
church  of  God.  It  may  surprise  those  who  peruse 
these  pages,  to  learn,  that  all  the  authority  from  the 
Bible  which  could  be  adduced  in  favour  of  these 
enormous  claims,  has  now  been  submitted  to  their 
observation.  Who  can  repress  melancholy  emo- 
tions, at  the  thought  that  such  power  has  been  claim- 
ed, and  such  domination  exercised  by  man,  on  so 
slender  authority  as  this  ! 

It  does  not  accord  with  the  design  which  I  had  in 
view  in  this  argument,  to  go  into  an  examination  of 
the  testimony  from  the  Fathers,  nor  into  an  inquiry 
into  the  question,  what  light  is  thrown  upon  the 
doctrine  of  the  "  apostolical  succession,"  from  the 
history  of  the  church.  It  is  perfectly  clear,  how- 
ever, that  there  are  two  points  which  it  is  incumbent 
for  the  advocate  for  such  a  "  succession"  to  esta- 
blish. The  first  is,  to  demonstrate  that  according 
to  the  New  Testament,  such  a  "  succession" 
was  designed.  That  has  been  examined.  The 
other  is,  to  adduce  positive  evidence  that  such  a 
succession  has  been  in  fact  maintained.  To  esta- 
blish the  claim  of  prelacy,  one  of  these  points  is  as 
essential  as  the  other.  Without  departing,  there- 
fore, materially  from  the  design  which  I  had  in 
view,  and  in  order  to  show  how  utterly  untenable 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


1 


the  claims  of  prelates  are  to  any  such  "  succession" 
from  the  apostles,  I  may  here  remark,  that  should 
we  admit  all  that  Episcopalians  claim  on  the  Scrip, 
ture  argument,  there  is  not  the  slightest  proof,  as  a 
matter  of  historical  record,  that  the  Episcopal  ofRce 
has  been  transmitted  from  prelate  to  prelate  to  the 
present  time,  but  that  the  pretended  line  has  been 
repeatedly  broken.  As  satisfactory  evidence  I  ad- 
duce the  following  indisputable  facts  from  Bede; 

"  We  are  informed  by  many  ancient  historians, 
and  very  expressly  by  Bede,  in  his  famous  Ecclesi- 
astical History,  'That  at  the  request  of  Oswald, 
king  of  Northumberland,  certain  jpreshyters  came 
(in  the  seventh  century)  from  Scotland  into  Eng- 
land, and  ordained  bishops;  that  the  abbot,  and 
other  presbyters  of  the  island  of  Hy,  sent  Aydan 
for  this  express  purpose,  declaring  him  to  be  worthy 
of  the  office  of  bishop,  and  that  he  ought  to  be  sent 
to  instruct  the  unbelieving  and  the  unlearned.'  He 
informs  us,  that '  those  presbyters  ordained  him  and 
sent  him  to  England  on  this  errand ;  and  that  Finan, 
sent  from  the  same  monastery  in  the  same  island, 
succeeded  him  in  the  Episcopal  office,  after  having 
been  ordained  by  the  Scottish  presbyters.'  " 

Upon  this  testimony  of  Bede,  Baxter  remarks, 
"  You  will  find,  that  the  English  had  a  succession 
of  bishops  by  the  Scottish  presbyter'' s  ordination  ; 
and  there  is  no  mention  in  Bede,  of  any  dislike 
or  scruple  of  the  lawfulness  of  this  course.     The 


!26 


ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 


barned  Dr.  Doddridge  refers  us  to  Bede  and  Jones, 
.o  substantiate  the  fact,  that  '  the  ordination  of  Eng- 
lish bishops  cannot  be  traced  up  to  the  church  of 
Rome  as  its  original ;  that  in  the  year  668,  the  suc- 
cessors of  Austin,  the  monk,  (who  came  over  A.  D. 
596,)  being  almost  extinct,  hy  far  the  greater  part 
of  the  bishops  were  of  Scottish  ordination,  by  Ay- 
dan  and  Finan,  who  came  out  of  the  Culdee  mon- 
astery of  Columbanus,  and  were  no  more  than 
presbyters.^ 

"  And  is  it  verily  so,  that  the  Episcopal  blood  was 
thus  early  and  extensively  contaminated  in  Eng- 
land? Is  it  verily  so,  that  when  the  effects  of  pious 
Austin's  labours  had  become  almost  imperceptible, 
the  sinking  church  was  revived  again,  by  sending 
to  Scotland  for  presbyters  to  come  and  ordain  a  mul- 
titude of  bishops?  Then  it  is  verily  a  fact,  that 
Presbyterian  ordination  is  one  of  the  sturdiest  pillars 
that  support  the  vast  fabric  of  the  church  of  Eng- 
land. No  matter  if  only  ten  bishops  were  thus 
ordained,  the  contamination,  (if  it  be  one,)  having 
been  imparted  more  than  eleven  hundred  years  ago, 
has  had  a  long  time  to  diffuse  itself,  and  doubtless, 
has .  diffused  itself  so  extensively  from  bishop  to 
bishop,  that  not  a  single  prelate  in  Great  Britain 
can  prove,  that  he  has  escaped  the  infection.  For 
what  one  of  them  can  tell,  if  he  was  not  consecrated 
by  bishops,  who  were  themselves  consecrated  by 
bishops,  and  they  by  other  bishops,  to  whom  all  the 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  127 

ordaining  power  they  ever  had,  was  transmitted 
from  the  presbyters  of  Scotland?  But  this  is  not 
the  whole  of  the  evil.  As  no  one  bishop  can  trace 
his  Episcopal  pedigree  farther  back,  perhaps,  haa 
two  or  three  centuries,  so  he  cannot  certainly  k.iow, 
that  any  presbyter,  on  whose  head  he  has  imfosed 
hands,  has  received  from  him  any  thing  more  than 
Presbyterian  ordination.  Nor  is  this  all  the  evil. 
The  Protestant  Episcopal  bishops  and  presbyters  in 
America  are  in  the  same  plight ;  for  all  their  author- 
ity came  from  England.  But  as  the  English  bish- 
ops who  gave  it  to  them,  could  not  then,  and  cannot 
now,  certainly  tell  whence  it  came,  so  who  knows 
but  all  the  Episcopal  clergy  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  are  originally  indebted  to  the  hands  of! 
Elder  Aydan  and  Elder  Finan,  for  all  their  minis- 
terial powers'?  I  tremble  for  all  Protestant  Episco- 
pal churches  on  both  continents,  if  Presbyterian  or- 
dination be  not  VALID  and  scriptural." 

The  point,  also,  that  there  may  be  a  lawful  or- 
dination without  a  "  bishop"  is  expressly  conceded 
by  Hooker. 

"Now  whereas  hereupon  some  do  infer  that  no 
ordination  can  stand,  but  only  such  as  is  made  by 
bishops  which  have  had  their  ordination  likewise  by 
other  bishops  before  them,  till  we  come  to  the  very 
apostles  of  Christ  themselves ;  in  which  respect  it 
was  demanded  of  Beza  at  Poissie,  by  what  authority 


128  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

he  could  administer  the  Holy  Sacraments,  &c. — 
to  this  we  answer  that  there  may  be  sometimes 
very  just  and  sufficient  reason  to  allow  ordination 
made  without  a  bishop." 

To  these  considerations  may  now  be  added  the 
remarkable  concession  of  Archbishop  Whately, 
showing  the  result  to  which  an  independent  and 
honest  man,  though  sustaining  the  highest  office  in 
the  Episcopal  church,  is  constrained  to  come  as  the 
resul;  of  a  careful  examination  of  the  whole  question 
of  the  "apostolical  succession." 

"  Now  what  is  the  degree  of  satisfactory  assu- 
rance that  is  thus  afforded  to  the  scrupulous  con- 
sciences of  any  members  of  an  Episcopal  Church? 
If  a  man  consider  it  as  highly  probable  that  the 
particular  Minister  at  whose  hands  he  receives  the 
sacred  ordinances,  is  really  thus  apostolically  de- 
scended, this  is  the  very  utmost  point  to  which  he 
can,  with  any  semblance  of  reason,  attain :  and  the 
more  he  reflects  and  inquires,  the  more  cause  for 
hesitation  he  will  find.  There  is  not  a  minister  in 
all  Christendom  who  is  able  to  trace  up  with  any 
approach  to  certainty  his  own  spiritual  pedigree. 
The  sacramental  virtue  (for  such  it  is,  that  is  im- 
plied— whether  the  term  be  used  or  not — in  the 
principle  I  have  been  speaking  of)  dependent  on  the 
imposition  of  hands,  with  a  due  observance  of  apos- 
tolical usages,  by  a  bishop,  himself  duly  consecrated, 


OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  129 

after  having  been  in  like  manner  baptized  into  the 
church,  and  ordained  deacon  and  priest — this  sa- 
cramental virtue,  if  a  single  link  of  the  chain  be 
faulty,  must,  on  the  above  principles,  be  utterly 
nullified  ever  after,  in  respect  of  all  the  links  that 
hang  on  that  one.  For  if  a  bishop  has  not  been 
duly  consecrated,  or  had  not  been,  previously, 
rightly  ordained,  his  ordinations  are  null ;  and  so 
are  the  ministrations  of  those  ordained  by  him;  and 
their  ordination  of  others;  (supposing  any  of  the 
persons  ordained  by  him  to  attain  to  the  Episcopal 
office,)  and  so  on,  without  end.  The  poisonous  taint 
of  informality,  if  it  once  creep  in  undetected,  will 
spread  the  infection  of  nullity  to  an  indefinite  and 
irremediable  extent. 

"  And  who  can  undertake  to  pronounce  that  during 
that  long  period  usually  designated  the  Dark  Ages, 
no  such  taint  ever  was  introduced?  Irregularities 
could  not  have  been  wholly  excluded  without  a  per- 
petual miracle;  and  that  no  such  miraculous  inter- 
ference existed,  we  have  even  historical  proof. 
Amidst  the  numerous  corruptions  of  doctrine  and  of 
practice,  and  gross  superstitions,  that  crept  in, 
during  those  ages,  we  find  recorded  descriptions  not 
only  of  the  profound  ignorance  and  profligacy  of 
life,  of  many  of  the  clergy,  but  also  of  the  grossest 
irregularities  in  respect  of  discipline  and  form.  We 
read  of  bishops  consecrated  when  mere  children ; — 
of  men  officiating  who  barely  knew  their  letters ; — 
12 


130        ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

of  prelates  expelled,  and  others  put  in  their  places, 
by  violence; — of  illiterate  and  profligate  laymen  and 
habitual  drunkards,  admitted  to  holy  orders ;  and  in 
short,  of  the  prevalence  of  every  kind  of  disorder, 
and  reckless  disregard  of  the  decency  which  the 
apostle  enjoins.  It  is  inconceivable  that  any  one, 
even  moderately  acquainted  with  history,  can  feel  a 
certainty,  or  any  approach  to  certainty,  that,  amidst 
all  this  confusion  and  corruption,  every  requisite 
form,  was,  in  every  instance,  strictly  adhered  to,  by 
men,  many  of  them  openly  profane  and  secular,  un- 
restrained by  public  opinion,  through  the  gross  ig- 
norance of  the  population  among  which  they  lived ; 
and  that  no  one  not  duly  consecrated  or  ordained, 
was  admitted  to  sacred  offices. 

"  Even  in  later  and  more  civilized  and  enlightened 
times,  the  probability  of  an  irregularity,  though  very 
greatly  diminished,  is  yet  diminished  only,  and  not 
absolutely  destroyed.  Even  in  the  memory  of  per- 
sons living,  there  existed  a  bishop  concerning  whom 
there  was  so  much  mystery  and  uncertainty  pre- 
vailing as  to  when,  where,  and  by  whom,  he  had 
been  ordained,  that  doubts  existed  in  the  mind  of 
many  persons  whether  he  had  ever  been  ordained 
at  all.  I  do  not  say  that  there  was  good  ground  for 
the  suspicion;  but  I  speak  of  the  fact,  that  it  did 
prevail ;  and  that  the  circumstances  of  the  case  were 
such  as  to  make  manifest  the  possibility  of  such  an 
irregularity  occurring  under  such  circumstances. 


OF  TITE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  131 

"  Now,  let  any  one  proceed  on  the  hypothesis  that 
there  are,  suppose,  but  a  hundred  links  connecting 
any  particular  minister  with  the  apostles;  and  let 
him  even  suppose  that  not  above  one  half  of  this 
number  pass  through  such  periods  as  admit  of  any 
possible  irregularity;  and  then,  placing  at  the  lowest 
estimate  the  probability  of  defectiveness  in  respect 
of  each  of  the  remaining  fifty,  taken  separately,  let 
him  consider  what  amount  of  probability  will  result 
from  the  multiplying  of  the  whole  together.*  The 
ultimate  consequence  must  be  that  any  one  who 
sincerely  believes  that  his  claim  to  the  benefits  of 
the  Gospel-Covenant  depends  on  his  own  minister's 
claim  to  the  supposed  sacramental  virtue  of  true  or- 
dination, and  this  again,  on  perfect  apostolical  suc- 
cession as  above  described,  must  be  involved,  in 
proportion  as  he  reads,  and  inquires,  and  reflects, 
and  reasons,  on  the  subject,  in  the  most  distressing 
doubt  and  perplexity. 

"  It  is  no  wonder,  therefore,  that  the  advocates  of 
this  theory  studiously  disparage  reasoning,  depre- 
cate all  exercise  of  the  mind  in  reflection,  decry  ap- 
peals to  evidence,  and  lament  that  even  the  power 
of  reading  should  be  imparted  to  the  people.     It  is 

*  Supposing-  it  to  be  one  Inindred  to  one,  in  each  separ- 
ate case,  in  favour  of  the  legitimacy  and  regularity  of  the 
transmission,  and  the  links  to  amount  to  fifty,  (or  any 
other  number,)  the  probability  of  the  unbroken  continu- 
ity of  the  whole  chain  must  be  computed  as  ^^  of  _^^^ 
of  TT?o  »  ^c.,  to  the  end  of  the  whole  fifty. 


132        ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

not  without  cause  that  they  dread  and  lament  *  an 
age  of  too  much  light,'  and  wish  to  involve  religion 
in  '  a  solemn  and  awful  gloom.'*  It  is  not  without 
cause  that,  having  removed  the  Christian's  confi- 
dence from  a  rock,  to  base  it  on  sand,  they  forbid 
all  prying  curiosity  to  examine  their  foundation. 

"  The  fallacy,  indeed,  by  which,  according  to  the 
above  principles,  the  Christian  is  taught  to  rest  his 
own  personal  hopes  of  salvation  on  the  individual 
claims  to  '  apostolical  succession'  of  the  particular 
minister  he  is  placed  under,  is  one  so  gross  that  few 
are  thoughtless  enough  to  be  deceived  by  it  in  any 
case  where  religion  is  not  concerned; — where,  in 
short,  a  man  has  not  been  taught  to  make  a  virtue 
of  uninquiring,  unthinking,  acquiescence.  For  the 
fellacy  consists  in  confounding  together  the  unbro- 
ken apostolical  succession  of  a  Christian  ministry 
generally,  and  the  same  succession  in  an  unbroken 
line,  of  this  or  that  individual  minister.  The  ex- 
istence of  such  art  order  of  men  as  Christian  min- 
isters^ continuously  from  the  time  of  the  apostles  to 
this  day,  is  perhaps  as  complete  a  moral  certainty, 
as  any  historical  fact  can  be;  because  (indepen- 
dently of  the  various  incidental  notices  by  histori- 
ans, of  such  a  class  of  persons,)  it  is  plain,  that  if, 
at  the  present  day,  or  a  century  ago,  or  ten  centu- 
ries ago,  a  number  of  men  had  appeared  in  the 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  I  33 

world,  professing  (as  our  clergy  do  now,)  to  hold  a 
recognised  office  in  a  Christian  church,  to  which 
they  had  been  regularly  appointed  as  successors  to 
others,  whose  predecessors,  in  like  manner,  had 
held  the  same,  and  so  on,  from  the  times  of  the 
apostles — if,  I  say,  such  a  pretence  had  been  put 
forth  by  a  set  of  men  assuming  an  office  which 
no  one  had  ever  heard  of  before — it  is  plain,  that 
they  would  at  once  have  been  refuted  and  exposed. 
And  as  this  will  apply  equally  to  each  successive 
generation  of  Christian  ministers,  till  we  come  up  to 
the  time  when  the  institution  was  confessedly  new 
— that  is,  to  the  time  when  Christian  ministers  were 
appointed  by  the  apostles,  who  professed  themselves 
eyewitnesses  of  the  resurrection,  we  have  (as  Leslie 
has  remarked,*)  a  standing  monument,  in  the  Chris- 
tian ministry,  of  the  fact  of  that  event  as  bavins 
been  proclaimed  immediately  after  the  time  when  it 
was  said  to  have  occurred.  This,  therefore,  is 
fairly  brought  forward  as  an  evidence  of  its  truth. 

"  But  if  each  man's  Christian  hope  is  made  to 
rest  on  his  receiving  the  Christian  ordinances  at  the 
hands  of  a  minister  to  whom  the  sacramental  virtue 
that  gives  efficacy  to  those  ordinances  has  been 
transmitted  in  unbroken  succession  from  hand  to 
hand,  every  thing  must  depend  on  that  particular 
minister :  and  his  claim  is  by  no  means  established 

*  Short  Method  with  Deists. 
12* 


134  0ROA.NIZATI0N  AND  GOVERNMENT 

from  our  merely  establishing  the  uninterrupted  ex- 
istence of  such  a  class  of  men  as  Christian  minis- 
ters. '  You  teach  me,'  a  man  might  say,  '  that  my 
salvation  depends  on  the  possession  by  you — the 
particular  pastor  under  whom  I  am  placed — of  a 
certain  qualification ;  and  when  I  ask  for  the  proof 
that  you  possess  it,  you  prove  to  me  that  it  is  pos- 
sessed generally  by  a  certain  class  of  persons  of 
whom  you  are  one,  and  probably  by  a  large  major- 
ity of  them !'  How  ridiculous  it  would  be  thought, 
if  a  man  laying  claim  to  the  throne  of  some  country 
should  attempt  to  establish  it  without  producing  and 
proving  his  own  pedigree,  merely  by  showing  that 
that  country  had  always  been  under  hereditary  re- 
gal government/"* 

The  following  decisive  remarks  of  Whately  are 
in  exact  accordance  with  the  conclusion  to  which 
we  have  been  led  by  this  investigation.  "  Succes- 
sors, in  the  apostolic  office,  the  apostles  have  none. 
As  witnesses  of  the  resurrection — as  dispensers  of 
miraculous  gifts — as  inspired  oracles  of  divine  re- 
velation, they  have  no  successors.  But  as  mem- 
bers— as  ministers — as  governors  of  Christian  com- 
munities, their  successors  are  the  regularly  admit- 
ted members — the  lawfully  ordained  ministers — the 
regidar  and  recognized  governors,  of  a  regularly 
subsisting  Christian  church."  pp.  235,  236. 

*  Kingdom  of  Christ  Delineated,  pp.  182—188. 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  135 

Sect.  2. — The  rite  of  confirmation. 
The  second  claim  in  behalf  of  the  "  bishop" 
which  is  advanced  by  Episcopalians  is,  that  to 
him  appertains  exclusively  the  office  of  adminis- 
tering the  rite  of  confirmation.  "  Episcopacy  de- 
clares that  the  Christian  ministry  was  establish- 
ed in  three  orders-,  called,  ever  since  the  apos- 
tolic age,  bishops,  presbyters  or  elders,  and  dea- 
cons; of  which  the  highest  only  has  the  right  to 
ordain  and  confirm.'^''  Tract  of  Dr.  Onderdonk,  p. 
11.  Having  examined  the  question  whether  there 
is  contemplated  in  the  New  Testament  the  existence 
of  an  order  of  men  of  "  superior  2;rade  and  rank" 
who  should  be  regarded  as  peculiarly  the  "  succes- 
sors" of  the  apostles,  and  to  whom  was  to  be  en- 
trusted the  power  of  ordination,  or  of  transmitting 
ihe  office  of  the  ministry,  the  next  question  is, 
whether,  on  the  supposition  that  there  is  to  he  such 
a  body  of  men,  the  claim  which  is  set  up  in  their 
behalf,  that  they  have  the  exclusive  right  to  admin- 
ister the  rite  of  confirmation  is  well  founded.  The 
inquiry,  as  in  the  former  instance,  will  be  confined 
wholly  to  the  New  Testament. 

The  first  question,  of  course,  relates  to  the  nature 
of  this  claim,  or  what  is  intended  by  it  by  Episco- 
palians themselves.  The  nature  of  this  rite  is  thus 
stated :  "  It  is  a  confirmation  or  ratification  on  the 
part  of  those  who  receive  it,  of  their  baptismal  en- 
gagements, and  a  confirmation  or  renewal  by  Al- 


1 36        ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

mighty  God  of  all  the  privileges  of  their  baptism."* 
"  They  [the  bishops]  are  to  confirm  all  who  have 
repented  and  been  made  disciples  through  the 
washing  of  regeneration  (baptism,)  by  laying  their 
hands  upon  them,  and  invoking  the  aid  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  that  they  may  continue  Christ's  faithful  sol- 
diers and  servants  to  their  lives'  end,  as  St.  Peter 
and  St.  Paul  did  upon  the  disciples  in  Samaria. "f 
"  The  word  confirmation  is  applied  to  the  religious 
rite  of  laying  on  of  hands  because  the  young  person 
then  confirms  and  ratifies,  in  his  own  person,  the 
vows  which  had  been  made  for  him  at  baptism  ; 
and  the  bishop  confirms  and  strengthens  him  in  his 
pious  resolutions,  by  prayer  and  the  imposition  of 
hands.  The  simple  design  of  it  is,  that  those  who 
have  been  devoted  to  God  in  infancy  in  the  sacra- 
ment of  baptism,  may,  when  they  come  to  years  of 
discretion,  take  upon  themselves  the  solemn  engage- 
ments which  were  made  for  them  by  their  godfathers 
and  godmothers,  by  a  public  and  direct  acknowledg- 
ment and  confirmation  of  their  baptismal  covenant 
with  God,  before  the  bishop  and  the  whole  church  ; 
and  that  they  may  receive  the  benefit  of  public 
prayer  and  episcopal  benediction,  with  the  ancient 

*  See  Relio'ious  Tracts,  No.  110,  published  by  the 
"Episcopal  Female  Tract  Society  of  Philadelphia,"  and 
"The  Candidate  for  Confirmation  Instructed,"  by  Bishop 
Hobart,  p.  4. 

-}-  "  Episcopal  Bishops  the  Successors  of  the  Apostles.'*" 
Sermon  by  Bishop  McCoskry,  p.  45. 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  137 

and  scriptural  rite  of  laying  on  of  hands,  in  order 
that  they  may  be  so  confirmed  and  strengthened  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  as  to  be  enabled  to  perform  their 
vows,  and  adorn  their  Christian  profession,  and  may 
be  afterwards  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table,  as  com- 
plete  members  of  the  visible  church."* 

In  this  account  of  the  nature  and  design  of  this 
rite,  probably  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  would 
agree.  If  some  who  are  called  "  high  churchmen" 
should  attach  a  higher  efficacy  to  it,  and  should  claim 
for  it  that  it  is  necessarily,  when  properly  administer- 
ed, connected  with  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  still,  it 
would  be  unfair  to  ascribe  this  belief  to  all  in  the 
Episcopal  church,  or  even  to  represent  it  as  the 
common  opinion.  All  classes  of  persons  have  a 
right  to  state  their  own  belief,  and  it  is  illegitimate 
in  an  argument  to  attribute  to  them  more  than  they 
profess  to  hold.  The  account  here  given  of  the 
nature  and  design  of  this  rite,  will  be  the  one  that 
will  be  kept  in  view  in  the  inquiry  respecting  its 
scriptural  authority. 

It  is  claimed  for  this  rite  by  all  Episcopalians, 
that  it  is  based  on  the  authority  of  the  Bible  ;  and  it 
is  in  this  view  only  that  it  becomes  a  subject  of  im- 
portant inquiry  in  this  argument.  Thus  Bishop 
Wilson  says,  "  This  rite  is  derived  from  the  prac- 

*  Address  to  Young  Persons  about  to  be  Confirmed. 
By  Daniel  Wilson,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Calcutta.  Phil. 
1842.     pp.  6,  7. 


138  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

tice  of  the  apostles.  We  are  informed  that  when 
the  inhabitants  of  Samaria  had  been  converted  and 
baptized,  and  had  received  the  word  of  God,  the 
apostles,  St.  Peter  and  St.  John,  were  sent  to  lay 
their  hands  on  these  new  converts,  that  they  might 
receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  Acts  viii.  14 — 17.  And 
the  disciples  of  Ephesus,  after  they  had  been  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  Jesus,  were  confirmed  by  St. 
Paul,  who  laid  his  hands  upon  them  and  they  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Ghost.  Acts  xix.  1 — 7.  It  seems 
evident  that  the  apostle  Paul  alludes  to  the  continu- 
ance of  this  rite,  as  an  ordinary  means  of  strength- 
ening the  faith  of  Christians,  by  joining  it  with 
baptism,  and  describing  both  as  among  the  first 
principles  of  the  oracles  of  God.  Heb.  v.  12,  vi.  1, 
2."  pp.  7,  8.  "  The  rank  which  the  '  laying  on  of 
hands'  holds  in  this  verse  (Heb.  vi.  1,  2,)  among 
'  the  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,'  proves  that 
it  refers  to  confirmation.  Imposition  of  hands  was 
indeed  employed  in  conveying  the  ministerial  autho- 
rity ;  and  by  the  same  ceremony  the  sick  were 
healed,  and  pious  and  holy  men  invoked  blessings 
on  the  objects  of  their  regard.  These  acts  cannot, 
liowever,  be  denoted  by  the  laying  on  of  hands  to 
which  the  apostle  refers ;  which  being  stated  as  a 
*■  principle  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,'  must  refer  to 
all  Christians.  But  these  acts  related  not  to  all 
Christians,  only  to  the  ministry,  who,  by  the  laying 
on  of  hands,  received  the  ministerial  authority ;  to 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHl'RCH.  139 

the  sick,  who,  by  this  rite,  were  healed ;  or  to  the 
individuals  on  whom,  by  this  ceremony,  pious  men 
invoked  blessings.  These  acts,  therefore,  of  the 
imposition  of  hands,  could  not  be  ranked  among 
the  '  principles  of  the  doctrines  of  Christ '  in  the 
same  station  with  '  repentance,'  with  '  faith,'  with 
*  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,'  and  with  '  a  judgment 
to  come.'  We  must,  therefore,  refer  this  appellation 
to  that  rite  which  universally  prevailed  in  the  primi- 
tive church,  and  which  is  known  in  modern  times 
by  the  name  of  confirmation."  Bp.  Hobart,  "  The 
Candidate  for  Confirmation  Instructed,"  pp.  4 — 6. 
See  also  the  Tract  on  Confirmation,  pp.  5,  6,  and 
also  Hooker's  Eccl.  Pol.  vol.  i.,  pp.  658 — 666. 

These  quotations  settle  a  point,  which  indeed  there 
would  be  no  hesitation  in  admitting,  among  Episco- 
palians, that  this  rite  rests  in  their  estimation  on  the 
authority  of  the  Scriptures.  It  is  practised  and  urged, 
not  as  a  mere  matter  of  expediency ;  not  as  a  cere- 
mony of  human  prudence ;  but  as  directed  by  the 
word  of  God.  It  is  claimed,  also,  that  it  is  a  rite 
not  to  be  practised  by  all  the  ministers  of  religion, 
but  exclusively  by  prelates  as  the  successors  of  the 
apostles,  and  as  being  one  of  the  objects  for  which 
there  is  continued  in  the  church  from  aTO  to  acre  a 
rank  of  clergy  of  superior  '  order.'  It  is  only  with 
reference  to  this  question  that  it  is  proposed  now  to 
examine  it.  Were  it  a  mere  matter  of  human  pru- 
dence ;  a  regulation  which  experience  had  shown  to 


140  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

be  useful ;  a  decent  and  solemn  form  of  admission 
into  the  church  adopted  by  Episcopalians,  no  more 
objection  could  lie  against  it  than  against  any  of  the 
forms  adopted  by  other  denominations  in  admitting 
members  to  their  communion.  All  churches  have 
found  it  desirable  to  adopt  some  method  by  which 
the  profession  of  faith  shall  be  indicated,  or  by  which 
candidates  shall  be  admitted  to  their  fellowship,  and, 
in  itself  considered,  the  method  of  admitting  them  by 
what  is  called  "  confirmation" — by  a  public  presen- 
tation before  the  church  and  congregation — by  reve- 
rent kneeling — and  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands 
of  a  pastor,  and  by  prayer — would  be  as  solemn 
and  appropriate  as  any  other  method,  and  might  be 
adopted  without  endangering  either  the  orthodoxy 
or  the  spirituality  of  any  church.  But  when  the 
claim  is  set  up  to  scriptural  authority  in  the  case, 
the  subject  assumes  quite  another  aspect.  Then  it 
is  taken  out  of  the  inquiries  relating  to  human  pru- 
dence and  expediency,  and  placed  on  the  basis  of 
obligation.  Then,  if  this  claim  be  substantiated,  it 
is  binding  not  only  on  Episcopalians,  but  on  all 
who  profess  to  be  Christians;  and  then  also  the 
churches  which  do  not  admit  the  regulation  are 
guilty  of  renouncing  one  of  the  rites  appointed  by 
the  Redeemer,  and  the  individuals  who  are  con- 
nected with  those  churches  are  excluded  from  one 
of  the  important  means  of  grace  appointed  by  him 
to  promote  the  spirituality  and  the  comfort  of  his 


OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  14i 

people.  For  the  vindication,  then,  of  those  churches, 
and  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  those  who  have 
been  admitted  to  the  church  without  the  imposition 
of  the  hands  of  a  "  bishop"  are  not  guilty  of  vio- 
lating the  rules  of  the  Great  Head  of  the  church,  I 
propose  to  demonstrate  that  this  claim  of  scriptural 
authority  for  the  rite  of  confirmation  is  wholly  un- 
founded. 

Before  proceeding  to  examine  the  authorities  re- 
lied on,  it  may  be  proper  to  remark  that  no  argu- 
ment can  be  derived  from  the  use  of  the  word 
"  conjir'rrC  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  said  of 
Paul  and  Barnabas  that  they  went  to  "  Lystra,  and  to 
Iconium,  and  to  Antioch,  confirming — irtKjTJ^pi'^ovT'f  j 
— the  souls  of  the  disciples,  and  exhorting  them  to 
continue  in  the  faith."  Acts  xiv.  22.  And  again  of 
Paul,  that  "  he  went  through  Syria  and  Cilicia  con^ 
firming — irttar'Typt^uiv — the  churches."  Acts  xv.  41. 
So  of  Judas  and  Silas  it  is  said,  that  "  being  prophets 
themselves,"  they  "  exhorted  the  brethren  with  many 
words,  and  confirmed — imotr^pi^av — them."  Acts 
xv.  32.  The  word  here  used,  means  merely  to 
strengthen,  or  to  establish,  and  has  no  reference  to 
any  particular  rite  of  religion  in  doing  it.  Nothing 
is  said  or  intimated  of  its  being  done  by  the  imposi- 
tion of  hands,  nor  is  there  the  slightest  reason  to 
suppose  that  this  was  practised  in  these  journeys. 
All  that  the  word  fairly  implies  is,  that  it  was  done 
by  instruction,  counsel,  exhortation,  and  prayer. 
13 


142  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

The  truth  was,  that  these  were  young  converts ; 
that  they  were  surrounded  by  enemies,  and  exposed 
to  temptation  ;  that  they  had  as  yet  but  a  shght 
acquaintance  with  the  gospel,  and  that  it  was  there- 
fore important  that  they  should  be  further  instructed, 
and  established  in  the  faith  of  Christianity.  There 
is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that  they  had  not 
been  admitted  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  church 
before,  or  that  any  ceremony  whatever  was  now 
performed  in  confirming  or  strengthening  them. 
Whatever  may  be  adduced  in  favour  of  this  rite, 
these  passages  will  not  be  claimed  in  its  defence  by 
intelligent  Episcopalians.  These  are  all  the  pass- 
ages in  the  New  Testament  where  the  English  iiiord 
"  confirm'''  is  used  where  it  could  possibly  be  sup- 
posed to  have  reference  to  this  rite ;  and  these  are 
never  adduced  by  intelligent  Episcopalians  as  fur- 
nishing any  support  for  it. 

In  examining  the  claim  for  the  scriptural  authority 
for  confirmation,  and  the  question  whether  it  should 
be  retained  in  the  church  as'  a  religious  rite,  I  sub- 
mit the  following  remarks. 

1.  In  the  New  Testament,  the  acts  of  laying  on 
of  hands  appealed  to  in  support  of  this  claim,  were 
uniformly  connected  with  imparting  the  miraculous 
gifls  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  That  the  apostles  did  lay 
on  their  hands  on  the  disciples  which  they  made,  or 
on  young  converts,  is  indisputable,  but  the  design  was 
specific,  and  is  mentioned  in  each  case.    But  two 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHITRCH.  143 

instances  of  the  "  laying  on  of  hands"  on  converts 
to  the  Christian  faith  are  referred  to  in  the  New 
Testament,  in  both  of  which  there  need  be  no  pos- 
sible danger  of  mistaking  the  object  and  the  effect, 
and  in  neither  of  them  is  the  effect  stated  which  is 
claimed  for  the  rite  of  "  confirmation."  The  first 
occurs  in  Acts  viii.  14 — 17.  "  Now  when  the  apos- 
tles which  were  at  Jerusalem  heard  that  Samaria 
had  received  the  word  of  God,  they  sent  unto  them 
Peter  and  John ;  who  when  they  were  come  down, 
prayed  for  them  that  they  might  receive  the  Holy 
Ghost :  for  as  yet  he  was  fallen  upon  none  of  them  ; 
only  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus."  Now  the  only  material  question  in  regard 
to  this  passage  as  a  proof-text  for  the  rite  of  con- 
firmation is,  whether  it  refers  to  "  the  ordinary  grace 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  is  necessary  to  enlighten 
and  aid  Christians  in  the  spiritual  life,"  (Bp.  Hobart,) 
or  whether  it  refers  to  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
which  were  manifested  in  some  visible  or  outward 
mode.  If  it  refer  to  the  former,  it  is  a  legitimate 
proof-text  to  be  used  in  defence  of  this  rite ;  if  to  the 
latter,  then  it  proves  nothing  to  the  purpose,  unless 
it  be  maintained  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  miraculously 
imparted  to  those  who  receive  "  confirmation"  from 
the  hand  of  the  bishop.  That  the  imposition  of  the 
hands  referred  to  was  accompanied  with  an  impart- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  a  miraculous  or  public 
manner,  is  evident  from  the  narrative.     (1.)  It  is 


144  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

that  which  the  language  used  would  naturally  ex- 
press. Thus  it  is  said  "  as  yet  he  was  fallen  upon 
none  of  them," — language  which  naturally  suggests 
the  remarkable  occurrences  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
when  the  Holy  Spirit  descended  in  a  public  and 
visible  manner,  conferring  the  miraculous  endow- 
ment of  being  able  to  speak  foreign  languages.  It 
is  not  such  language  as  would  denote  properly  the 
ordinary  influences  of  the  Spirit  in  converting  the 
soul,  or  that  "  ordinary  grace  which  is  necessary  to 
enlighten  and  aid  Christians  in  the  spiritual  life." 
(2.)  That  it  was  accompanied  with  some  remark- 
able power  or  outward  manifestation  ;  something  of 
the  nature  of  miracle,  either  enabling  them  to  work 
miracles  or  to  speak  with  new  tongues,  is  manifest 
from  the  effect  which  it  had  on  Simon  Magus,  who 
witnessed  it.  "  And  when  Simon  saw  that  through 
laying  on  of  the  apostles'  hands  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
given,  he  offered  them  money,  saying.  Give  me  also 
this  power,  that  on  whomsoever  I  lay  hands  he  may 
receive  the  Holy  Ghost."  Verses  18,  19.  Now,  it  is 
evident,  that  there  must  have  been  some  visible  mani- 
festation— some  outward  power — which  Simon  sup- 
posed would  be  of  value  to  him  in  carrying  on  a  system 
of  fraud  and  deception ; — something  which  he  would 
be  willing  to  "  purchase"  if  possible,  as  constituting 
a  valuable  capital  in  exerting  a  power  over  men. 
Whatever  tliis  was,  it  must  have  been  something 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  fHURCH.  1 45 

besides  the  '  ordinary  grace  which  is  necessary  to 
enlighten  and  aid  Christians  in  the  spiritual  Ufc." 
It  must  have  been  more  than  is  conferred  now  in 
the  rite  of  confirmation,  for  what  power  or  influence 
is  conferred  now  by  the  "  apostolical  bishop"  in  this 
rite  which  a  man  who  wished  to  exert  an  influence 
over  his  fellow-men  would  desire  to  purchase?  What 
would  excite  greater  wonder  than  for  a  man  with  the 
spirit  and  design  of  Simon  Magus — wishing  to  obtain 
some  powerful  agency  not  possessed  by  others  for 
the  purpose  of  fraud  and  imposture — to  approach  a 
prelate  after  he  had  administered  this  rite  to  a  com- 
pany of  disciples  "  properly  instructed,"  and  delibe- 
rately propose  to  purchase  this  remarkable  power ! 
Would  a  prelate  understand  precisely  what  it  was 
that  he  desired  to  -purchase  1  It  need  only  be  added, 
on  this  passage,  that  whatever  was  conferred  on  the 
disciples  of  Samaria,  from  any  thing  that  appears  in 
the  narrative,  was  conferred  on  them  all.  There  is 
no  reason  whatever  to  suppose,  as  Bp.  Hobart  does 
(p.  6,)  that  these  remarkable  endowments  were  con- 
ferred on  one  part,  and  that  on  the  other  the  ordi- 
nary gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  only  were  bestowed. 
Of  any  such  distinction,  the  sacred  writer  has  not 
thought  proper  to  give  us  any  information,  and  that 
there  was  such  a  distinction  should  not  be  assumed 
in  an  argument  to  defend  the  scriptural  authority  of 
this  rite. 

The  only  other  case  appealed  to  in  defence  of  this 
13* 


146  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

rite  is  in  Acts  xix.  1 — 7,  where  the  narrative  is 
equally  clear  and  decisive.  It  is  that  of  the  disci- 
ples at  Ephesus.  When  Paul  came  there,  he  asked 
them  whether  they  had  received  the  Holy  Ghost? 
They  replied,  "  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard 
whether  there  be  any  Holy  Ghost."  They  had 
been  baptized,  they  said,  '  unto  John's  baptism ;' 
and  after  now  being  baptized  '  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,'  it  is  added,  "  and  when  Paul  had 
laid  his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy  Ghost  came  on 
them ;  and  they  spake  with  tongues  and  prophesied.'^'' 
Here  it  is  expressly  affirmed,  that  the  miraculous 
endowment  of  speaking  foreign  languages  was  con- 
ferred on  them,  and  evidently  on  them  all,  for  there 
is  no  distinction  made  among  them.  There  is  no 
intimation  whatever  that  it  was  a  rite  designed 
merely  to  confirm  them  in  "  the  ordinary  grace 
which  is  necessary  to  enlighten  and  aid  Christians 
in  the  spiritual  life ;"  or  that  it  was  to  be  continued 
as  an  ordinance  in  the  church.  So  far  as  these 
cases  go,  they  demonstrate  merely  the  fact  that  the 
Holy  Ghost,  in  his  miraculous  influences,  was  con- 
ferred by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  apostles 
— and  them  only. 

These  are  the  only  cases  in  the  New  Testament ; 
the  only  facts  appealed  to  to  show  that  the  "  rite  of 
confirmation"  is  scriptural  in  its  character  and  au- 
thority, and  is  to  be  continued  in  the  church.  There 
is  no  intimation  whatever  that  it  was  a  mere  rite  of 


I 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  147 

religion  for  establishing  Christians  in  the  belief  of 
the  truth  ;  or  for  admitting  members  to  the  commu- 
nion ;  or  that  there  would  be  any  special  efficacy 
or  benefit  in  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the 
"  successors"  of  the  apostles. 

Now,  it  is  a  matter  of  simple  justice  in  the  ar- 
gument to  demand,  that  if  these  cases  are  appealed 
to,  it  should  he  just  as  they  occurred.  It  should  be 
simply  to  prove,  that  by  the  "  laying  on  of  the 
hands"  of  the  "  bishops"  there  will  be  imparted 
some  remarkable  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  can 
properly  be  spoken  of  as  ^^  falling  upon'''  those  who 
receive  it,  and  which  is  so  visible  and  manifest  that 
a  bad  man  might  deem  it  desirable  to  "  purchase" 
it,  if  he  could,  in  order  to  exert  an  influence  over 
his  fellow  men ;  and  that  there  is,  in  fact,  imparted, 
in  each  case,  the  "  gift  of  tongues,"  and  the  power 
of  "  prophesying."  These  texts  would  be  entirely 
pertinent  and  unanswerable  to  prove  those  points ; — 
but  how  do  they  prove  another  and  quite  a  foreign 
thing ;  a  thing  that  has  no  resemblance  to  this,  that 
the  "  bishop"  has  the  right  of  laying  on  his  hands 
to  impart  the  "  ordinary  grace  which  is  necessary 
to  enlighten  and  aid  Christians  in  the  spiritual  life?" 
They  prove  one  thing  only,  that  in  certain  cases 
the  laying  on  of  the  apostles'  hands  was  accompa- 
nied with  the  miraculous  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Is  this  conferred  by  the  laying  on  of  the  bishop's 
hands  ?     If  so,  the  passages,  as  proof-texts,  are  in 


148        ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

point.  If  not,  why  are  they  adduced?  Whatever 
may  be  the  force  of  other  arguments  in  favour  of 
the  rite  of  confirmation,  it  is  respectfully  insisted  on 
that  these  texts — referring  to  the  only  facts  on  the 
subject  in  the  New  Testament — prove  nothing. 

(2.)  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  passage  so 
often  appealed  to  by  Episcopalians  in  support  of 
confirmation  in  Heb.  vi.  1,  2,  has  any  reference  to 
that  rite,  as  now  practised,  or  that  it  furnishes  any 
authority  for  it.  "  Therefore,  leaving  the  principles 
of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  let  us  go  on  unto  perfec- 
tion ;  not  laying  again  the  foundation  of  repentance 
from  dead  works,  and  of  faith  towards  God,  of  the 
doctrine  of  baptisms,  and  of  laying  on  of  hands, 
and  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal 
judgment."  This  passage  is  referred  to  as  in  the 
quotations  already  made,  as  if  it  were  indisputable 
that  it  must  refer  to  that  rite  of  religion,  and  as  if  it 
needed  no  further  confirmation  than  a  mere  refer- 
ence to  it  in  order  to  remove  all  doubts  on  the  sub- 
ject. But  a  few  considerations  will  show  that  it 
cannot,  with  propriety,  be  adduced  as  a  proof-text 
to  demonstrate  that  the  rite  of  confirmation  is  to  be 
of  perpetual  observance  in  the  church.  First,  the 
laying  on  of  hands  was  practised  among  the  He- 
brews, and  by  the  apostles  themselves,  on  a  great 
variety  of  occasions,  and  with  no  exclusive  refer- 
ence to  the  rite  of  confirmation.  It  occurred  in  the 
following  cases : — when  a  blessing  was  imparted  to 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  149 

any  one,  Gen.  xlviii.  14,  18,;  when  prayer  was 
offered  for  one;  and  when  sacrifice  was  offered, 
accompanied  with  the  confession  of  sin,  the  hands 
were  then  laid  on  the  head  of  the  victim,  and  the 
confession  was  made  that  he  who  had  sinned  de- 
served punishment.  Lev.  xvi.  21.  xxiv.  14.  Num. 
viii.  12.  It  was  done  on  solemn  consecration  to  of- 
fice, as  in  setting  apart  the  high  priest  to  his  office, — 
In  the  New  Testament,  the  custom  is  referred  to  in 
the  following  cases :  (a)  The  Redeemer  laid  his 
hands  on  children  to  bless  them,  and  when  he  healed 
the  sick.  Matt.  xix.  13.  Mark  v.  23.  Matt.  ix.  lS.(b) 
The  x\postles,  in  like  manner,  laid  their  hands  on 
others  in  healing  the  sick,  Acts  xxviii.  8.  (c)  In  or- 
dination to  oflSce,  1  Tim.  v.  22.  Acts  vi.  6,  and  (d) 
in  imparting  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  cases  already 
referred  to.  Acts  viii.  17,  19.  xix.  6.  Now,  in  not 
one  of  these  cases  is  the  precise  thing  intended  which 
is  denoted  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  a  pre- 
latical  bishop  in  confirmation — as  connected  with 
the  "  ordinary  grace  which  is  necessary  to  enlighten 
and  aid  Christians  in  the  spiritual  life."  That  rite 
corresponds  neither  with  the  act  of  a  patriarch  in 
imparting  a  blessing  to  his  children ;  nor  to  the  offer- 
ing of  a  sacrifice ;  nor  to  the  consecration  of  a 
priest ;  nor  to  the  act  of  Christ's  blessing  little  chil- 
dren ;  nor  to  the  healing  of  the  sick ;  nor  to  an 
ordination  to  office;  nor  to  the  imparting  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  a  miraculous  manner.     It  is  a  new 


I  50  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

^c?ea,  wholly  unknown  to  any  use  of  the  phrase  as 
employed  in  the  New  Testament.  By  what  autho- 
rity is  this  new  idea  attached  to  a  scriptural  phrase ; 
and  by  what  form  of  reasoning  is  it  then  urged  that 
this  rite  is  of  divine  appointment,  and  is  to  be  ob- 
served in  the  churches  as  of  divine  obligation? 

Further :  if  the  phrase  had  been  so  used  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  there  were  any  instances  in 
which  it  could  be  shown  that  it  is  employed  as  it  is 
now  used  by  Episcopalians,  it  is  natural  to  ask  on 
what  principles  of  interpretation  it  is  held  that  this 
must  be  the  manner  in  which  it  is  used  in  Heb.  vi. 
2?  The  apostle  is  speaking  of  certain  elementary 
truths  or  principles  of  the  Christian  religion.  In  the 
enumeration  he  speaks  of  the  doctrine  of  "  baptisms, 
and  of  the  laying  on  of  hands,  and  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead."  He  refers  to  these  things  as  im- 
portant to  be  held  in  regard  to  the  faith  and  the 
order  of  the  Christian  church.  The  doctrine  of  the 
laying  on  of  hands  is  an  important  and  elementary 
principle ;  a  doctrine  that  is  to  be  held.  But  why 
shall  we  infer  that  it  must  refer  to  "  confirmation?" 
Why  may  it  not  refer  to  the  laying  on  of  hands  in 
healing  the  sick,  or  in  ordination,  or  in  the  bestow- 
ing of  the  miraculous  endowments  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  ?  Were  not  these  important  and  well-under- 
stood things  which  it  was  desirable  to  maintain,  and 
which  were  conceded  to  be  so  important  that  it  was 
not  necessary  to  dwell  further  upon  them  ?     Why, 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  I  5 1 

of  all  the  cases  in  which  the  laying  on  of  hands 
was  used,  is  this  selected  as  being  indubitably  what 
the  apostle  intended  in  the  case  ? 

Again,  if  it  be  supposed  that  the  order  in  which 
these  things  are  mentioned  is  such  as  to  demand 
that  it  shall  be  understood  of  some  rite  of  religion 
that  immediately  succeeded  baptism^  then  I  observe, 
that  it  should  be  held  just  as  it  was.  The  apostles 
did  lay  their  hands  on  young  converts  after  they 
were  baptized,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  was  imparted  to 
them.  Acts  viii.  xix.  But  it  was  the  miracidous 
pmver  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  was  imparted ;  and 
the  passage  before  us  should  be  used  only  to  de- 
monstrate that.  That  fact  was  of  sufficient  impor- 
tance for  the  apostle  to  mention  it  in  this  connexion 
as  one  of  the  great  and  important  things  connected 
with  the  Christian  religion — a  thing  so  well  under- 
stood then  that  he  did  not  think  it  important  to 
dwell  upon  it. 

It  should  be  further  added,  that  the  Saviour  ap- 
pointed no  such  institution  of  his  religion  for  per- 
petual observance  in  the  church.  He  instituted 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  and  required  them 
to  be  observed  at  all  times ;  but  there  is  no  intima- 
tion that  he  designated  any  such  rite  as  that  of 
*'  confirmation"  to  be  observed  in  his  church.  This 
consideration  is  important  to  show  that  he  did  not 
design  that  this  should  be  a  pennanent  ordinance 
of  his  religion.     Since  he  so  particularly  specified 


152  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

baptism  and  the  supper,  it  is  inconceivable  that  he 
should  have  wholly  omitted  any  reference  to  the 
rite  of  "  confirmation,"  if  he  had  intended  that  it 
should  be  observed  permanently  in  the  churches. 

The  sum  of  all  that  is  said  on  this  passage  is, 
that  if  it  is  to  be  understood  as  referring  to  the  im- 
parting of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  imposition  of  hands 
after  baptism,  it  should  be  employed  jwsi  as  it  was 
— ^just  in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  then  understood. 
The  only  instances  in  which  it  was  used  in  such  a 
connection  were  in  imparting  the  Holy  Spirit  in  a 
miraculous  manner.  If  Episcopal  bishops  claim 
this  now  as  the  true  doctrine;  if  they  mean  to  be 
understood  as  having  the  power  of  imparting  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  a  miraculous  manner,  then,  and  not 
otherwise,  the  text  in  Heb.  vi.  2,  is  pertinent  proof. 
But  when  they  advance  this  claim,  it  will  be  easy 
to  test  its  validity. 

These  are  all  the  texts  of  Scripture  which  are  relied 
on  to  demonstrate  the  Scriptural  authority  of  the  rite 
of  "  confirmation."  Whether  they  demonstrate  this, 
may  be  left  to  the  conclusion  of  any  candid  mind. 
Let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  Saviour  appointed  no 
such  rite  to  be  of  perpetual  observance  in  the  church; 
that  though  he  instructed  his  apostles  to  "  lay  hands 
on  the  sick,"  assuring  them  that  they  should  "  re- 
cover," (Mark  xvi.  18,)  he  gave  no  instructions  to 
them  to  *'  lay  hands"  on  the  newly-baptized  to  "con- 
firm" them,  or  on  a7iy  to  "  confirm"  them;  and  that 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  153 

in  the  only  instances  where  the  subject  is  referred 
to  in  the  New  Testament,  it  is  with  exclusive  re- 
ference to  the  conferring  of  miraculous  gifts,  and 
it  will  be  easily  seen  with  what  propriety  the  appeal 
is  made  to  the  New  Testament  to  show  that  to  the 
"  bishop"  appertains  the  authority  to  administer  the 
rite  of  "  confirmation." 

(3.)  If  the  above  be  a  fair  interpretation  of  the 
only  texts  in  the  Scriptures  which  are  relied  on  in 
support  of  the  right  of  "  confirmation,"  then  it  is  ob- 
vious that  there  is  great  impropriety  in  appealing  to 
them  with  a  view  to  giving  a  Scriptural  sanction 
to  this  ceremony.  It  is  among  the  means  of  giving 
a  wholly  unscriptural  prominency  and  importance 
to  the  office  of  a  "  prelate,"  and  of  preserving  the 
opinion  that  he  is  of  a  rank  far  elevated  above  the 
inferior  clergy.  The  use  of  those  texts,  and  the  habit 
of  appealing  to  them  as  authority,  has  the  tendency, 
if  it  is  not  designed  to  do  it,  to  leave  the  impression, 
that  the  "  bishop"  has  the  power  in  some  mysterious 
way,  and  in  a  manner  which  no  one  of  the  "  in- 
ferior clergy"  has,  and  which  the  ministers  of  no 
other  denomination  are  invested  with,  of  imparting 
the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  true,  we  may  be  told,  that  there 
is  no  such  claim  as  that  the  miraculous  influences 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  are  imparted ;  or  that  the  only 
meaning  is,  that  this  a  method  by  which  the  "  ordi- 
nary influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  adapted  to  en- 
lighten and  edify  Christians  are  conferred;"  or  that  it 
14 


154  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

is  a  mere  ceremony,  or  mode,  by  which  the  candi- 
date himself"  confirms"  his  purpose  to  be  the  Lord's  ; 
but  there  will  be  at  the  same  time  an  appeal  to  Scrip- 
ture in  support  of  it,  and  only  to  texts  which  speak 
of  the  conferring  of  extraordinary  endowments.  If 
these  texts  relate  to  the  matter,  and  are,  as  they  are 
adduced  to  be,  proof-texts  in  support  of  the  rite,  then 
they  carry  along  also  the  impression  that  there  must 
be  still  some  unusual  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
conveyed  through  the  hands  of  the  bishop.  Such 
an  effect  is  unavoidable  on  the  mass  of  minds ;  and 
it  may  be  doubted  whether  the  prelate  himself  would 
be  solicitous  to  avoid  it.  He  will  be  regarded  as  a 
man  invested  with  functions  which  appertain  to  no 
other  man.  He  has  a  power  of  conferring  that 
which  no  other  man  can  confer.  He  stands  be- 
tween God  and  man  to  be  the  medium  of  conveying 
important  influences  which  are  intrusted  to  no  other 
mortal.  There  will  be  supposed  to  be  influences  of 
a  valuable  kind  to  be  obtained  only  by  the  laying 
on  of  his  hands,  and  to  attempt  to  impart  which, 
would  be  an  act  of  the  highest  presumption  in  any 
one  of  the  inferior  clergy. 

It  cannot  be  doubted,  therefore,  that  the  right  of 
confirmation  is  one  of  the  devices  adopted  to  give 
an  unscriptural  pre-eminence  to  the  ofRce  of  the 
Episcopal  bishop.  It  is  adapted  to  keep  up  the  im- 
pression of  a  supreme  sanctity  in  the  man  who  holds 
this  oflice,  and  to  exalt  the  Episcopate  over  the  body 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  nilURCH.  155 

of  the  inferior  clergy.     Associate  with  an  office  the 
idea  that  there  are  peculiar  endowments  to  be  ob- 
tained onhj  through  that,  and  especially  the  idea  that 
the  Holy  Spirit,  even  in  "  the  ordinary  influences 
necessary  to  enlighten  and  aid  Christians  in  the 
spiritual  Ufe"  is  conveyed  in  this  way,  and  there  is 
a  degree  of  sanctity  attached  to  the  office  in  the  public 
estimation  which  can  be  secured  by  the  possession 
of  no  personal  moral  worth,  and  which  will  soon  be 
felt  to  be  an  equivalent  for  the  want  of  moral  worth. 
The  office  becomes  sacred,  no  matter  what  the  rruj.n 
is ;  the  ministrations  of  that  office  convey  rich  bless- 
ings to  the  soul,  though  the  incumbent  may  himself 
be  wholly  destitute  of  the  graces  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
The  tendency  of  the  doctrine,  therefore,  is  to  give  a 
pre-eminence  to  the  office  of  the  prelate ;  to  sustain 
him  in  an  usurpation  over  the  "  inferior  clergy;"  to 
keep  up  the  idea  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  conveyed  to 
the  soul  by  some  action  of  the  Diocesan,  and  inde- 
pendently of  any  piety  in  him,  or  any  personal  religion 
on  the  part  of  the  recipient ;  and,  therefore,  that  they 
who  are  "  confirmed"  in  this  manner,  and  on  whom 
the  Holy  Spirit  has  thus  been  conferred,  can  be  in 
no  danger  in  regard  to  their  eternal  salvation.    It  is 
a  part  of  the  system  of  the  Papacy,  and  is  essentially 
Papal  in  its  nature,  in  its  whole  tendency  on  the 
individual  and  on  the  church  of  Christ. 

Apart  from  the  entire  want  of  all  Scriptural  au- 
thority in  favour  of  the  rite  of  "  confirmation,"  there 


156  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

are  other  considerations  which  go  to  demonstrate 
that,  as  one  of  the  methods  of  exalting  the  "  bishop," 
and  of  supporting  prelacy,  it  is  wholly  a  device  of 
human  origin.  It  is  an  institution  adapted,  and  pro- 
bably originally  intended  in  the  progress  of  cor- 
ruption in  the  church,  to  humble  the  pastor  and  ex- 
alt the  prelate.  It  is  a  perpetual  aggression  on  the 
respect  which  is  due  to  the  pastor  of  a  church,  the 
man  who,  under  God,  is  instrumental  in  the  conver- 
sion of  those  who  are  to  be  "  confirmed."  If  the 
"  rite"  is  to  be  administered  at  all,  every  considera- 
tion of  propriety  and  of  justice  demands  that  it 
should  be  done  by  the  pastor  himself.  Those  who 
are  candidates  for  "  confirmation"  he  has  trained  up 
under  his  care.  He  has  instructed  and  guided  them 
from  childhood.  If  they  are  converted,  he  has  been 
the  means  of  their  conversion.  He  has  imparted 
to  them  the  knowledge  of  salvation,  and  has  been 
the  instrument  in  qualifying  them  to  become  mem- 
bers of  the  church  of  Christ.  In  all  this,  there  has 
been  no  supposition  of  his  incompetency  to  do  all, 
by  the  divine  blessing,  which  was  required  to  fit  them 
for  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  But  now  a  time  ap- 
proaches in  which  he  is  to  be  superseded.  He  is  to 
be  set  aside  as  disqualified  for  performing  the  duty 
of  admitting  them  to  the  church,  and  the  work  is 
committed  to  the  hands  of  a  stranger — a  prelatical 
bishop.  The  man  who  was  deemed  qualified  to  teach 
them  from  childhood,  and  to  guide  them,  under  the 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  157 

Great  Shepherd,  beside  the  living  waters  of  salva- 
tion, and  who  is  not  disqualified  to  break  unto  them 
the  bread  of  life ;  the  man  bound  to  them  by  the  ten- 
der ties  of  the  pastoral  relation,  and  by  all  the  asso- 
ciations and  intimacies  resulting  from  such  a  charge, 
is  to  be  set  aside,  and  is  to  give  place — to  whom  ?  To 
a  man  in  relation  to  whom  none  of  these  associa- 
tions exist ,-  a  man  whom  they  may  never  have  seen 
before,  and  whom  they  m.ay  never  see  again ;  a  man 
with  no  possible  claim  to  take  any  supervision  over 
them,  except  the  abstract  claim  of  ofRce ;  and  a  man 
who,  when  the  rite  is  performed,  is  never  to  perform 
towards  them  any  pastoral  supervision  whatever. 
Possibly,  too — for  such  cases  are  not  uncommon — 
he  may  be  a  man  far  inferior  in  moral  worth,  in 
spirituality  of  mind,  in  talent,  age,  eloquence,  and 
learning,  to  the  pastor  himself;  a  man  of  vitally 
different  views  on  the  subject  of  spiritual  Chris- 
tianity from  him;  a  man  whose  coming  is  barely 
tolerated  by  the  pastor,  and  that  only  in  virtue  of 
his  office. 

But  admitting  that  he  has  in  all  cases  the  highest 
degree  of  personal  respectability ;  that  there  centres 
in  him  always  all  the  excellences  which  endeared 
the  venerable  Bishop  White  to  the  religious  commu- 
nity, still  it  may  be  asked,  what  there  is  in  the 
character  and  teaching  and  lives  of  such  men  as 
Milnor,  and  Hawkes,  and  Tyng,  and  Clark,  and 
Suddards,  and  Dorr,  and  Stone,  which  renders  them 
14* 


158  ORGANI7ATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

incapacitated  for  so  simple  an  office  as  that  of  in- 
voking the  blessing  of  God  on  those  whom  they 
have  been  instrumental  in  converting?  Why  should 
such  men  be  held  up  to  the  community  as  disquali- 
fied to  perform  a  function,  which,  if  appropriate  at  all, 
properly  belongs  to  the  pastor?  Why  should  it  be 
announced  that  they  are  not  qualified  to  admit  their 
own  members  to  their  own  churches,  in  their  own 
way?  Why  shall  this  work  be  reserved  to  be  per- 
formed by  a  stranger?  Why  shall  the  whole  com- 
munity be  told  periodically,  that  the  regular  pastor 
of  a  people  is  disqualified  for  laying  his  own  hands 
on  the  youthful  members  of  his  charge,  and  implor- 
ing for  them  the  divine  blessing?  Is  this  in  accord- 
ance with  the  obvious  spirit  of  the  New  Testament? 
And  is  it  improper  to  ask  here — would  it  be  uncour- 
teous  to  put  it  to  the  conscience  and  heart  of  these 
beloved  and  useful  men — how  they  can  hear  to  be 
periodically  displaced  from  their  station  over  their 
flocks,  and  be  required  to  yield  to  another  the  per- 
formance of  a  duty — if  it  be  a  duty — which  pro- 
perly belongs  to  thejn?  If  there  be  an  advantage 
in  this  arrangement  to  them,  it  must  consist  in  its 
tendency  to  produce  ^rea^  humiliation  of  mind ^  and 
in  keeping  before  their  eyes,  and  the  eyes  of  their 
people,  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  growth  of 
spiritual  pride,  the  idea  that  they  are  only  of  "  the 
second  or  inferior  order"  even  in  their  own  churches. 
To  the  rite  of  "  confirmation"  as  a  mere  mode  of 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  1  59 

admission  to  a  church,  or  as  a  method  of  making  a 
profession  of  religion,  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
objections.  Every  denomination  has  a  right  to 
adopt  such  methods  of  signifying  a  purpose  to  make 
a  profession  of  rehgion,  not  inconsistent  with  the 
principles  of  the  Bible,  as  shall  be  deemed  best 
adapted  to  edification.  The  method  adopted  in 
"  confirmation"  might  be  used  by  a  Presbyterian,  or 
a  Methodist,  or  a  Baptist,  without  violating  any  of 
the  principles  which  they  entertain  about  the  proper 
methods  of  admission  to  the  church  of  Christ.  With 
such  a  view,  it  may  be  left  to  be  adopted  or  not,  as 
a  sense  of  propriety  may  lead  them  to  determine. 
But  when  it  is  urged  as  a  matter  of  Scriptural  au- 
thority ;  when  it  is  claimed  that  it  should  be  confined 
to  a  prelatical  bishop;  when  texts  are  referred  to 
■which  can  have  no  reference  to  any  thing  like 
"  confirmation"  as  now  understood ;  when  the  ef- 
fect of  appealing  to  such  texts  is  to  keep  up  the  idea 
of  some  superior  sanctity  in  the  "  bishop,"  and  of 
some  mysterious  power  of  imparting  the  Holy  Ghost; 
and  when  the  whole  tendency  is  to  debase  and  de- 
grade the  pastoral  office — to  displace  the  pastor  and 
represent  him  as  disqualified  from  performing  a 
simple  rite  in  relation  to  his  own  flock — to  remove 
him  to  make  way  for  a  stranger,  then  the  whole 
subject  assumes  a  different  aspect.  It  makes  an  in- 
vasion on  the  constitution  of  the  Christian  church, 
and  becomes  a  part  of  that  great  usurpation  which, 


160  OROANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

under  the  Roman  hierarchy,  asserted  a  dominion  of 
the  prelate  over  the  whole  "  inferior  clergy,"  and  of 
the  priesthood  over  the  whole  world.  Nothing  can 
be  more  flimsy  and  futile  than  an  attempt  to  show 
from  the  New  Testament,  that  a  "  bishop"  has 
the  exclusive  authority  for  administering  the  rite 
of  confirmation,  and  perhaps  there  is  no  device  in 
the  hierarchy  better  fitted  to  foster  a  sense  of  su- 
periority in  "  ministerial  rank  and  dignity,"  and  to 
nourish  the  worst  feelings  of  ambition  in  the  hu- 
man heart,  than  the  consciousness  of  possessing 
this  power  to  displace  the  pastors  from  their  office 
periodically  from  an  extended  circle  of  churches, 
and  to  make  an  annual  journey  where  every  step  is 
a  practical  proclamation  of  their  superior  "  rank," 
and  where  every  church  becomes  a  memento  of 
this  domination. 

Sect.  3. — The  Claims  of  the  Bishop  to  the  right 
of  Supervision  and  Discipline. 
These  points  might  be  examined  separately,  but 
as  the  same  principle  applies  to  both,  it  will  be 
more  convenient  to  consider  them  in  connection. 
The  claim  that  the  bishop  has  the  right  of  super- 
vision, and  of  administering  discipline  over  the 
churches  of  a  diocese,  is  one  that  is  essential  to 
Episcopacy.  It  is  a  claim  which  asserts  not  only 
that  the  general  care  of  the  churches  within  a  given 
district  devolves  on  the  "  bishop,"  but  that  neither 


OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  IQT 

the  individual  church,  nor  the  pastor  of  the  church, 
has  the  right  to  administer  discipline  on  the  mem- 
bers. It  asserts  that  this  power  is  placed  in  the 
hands  of  one  man,  who  is  comparatively  a  stranger, 
and  who  alone  has  the  right  of  determining  the 
amount  of  punishment  that  is  to  be  inflicted  on  the 
offending  members  of  a  particular  church.  The 
authority  which  is  urged  for  this  mighty  power  is, 
that  the  apostles,  in  virtue  of  their  office,  thus  in- 
flicted discipline;  and  that  to  the  prelate,  as  being  a 
"  successor"  of  the  apostles,  this  power  belongs 
therefore  as  a  matter  of  course.  We  have  examined 
the  claim  of  the  prelate  to  be  regarded  as  the  "  suc- 
cessor" of  the  apostks,  and  here  the  argument 
might  be  lefl,  for  if  prelates  are  in  no  proper  sense 
the  "  successors"  of  the  apostles,  then  it  will  follow 
that  even  if  the  apostles  did  exercise  discipline,  the 
bishops  have  no  claim  to  the  prerogatives  of  disci- 
pline in  the  churches.  But  in  order  wholly  to  dis- 
prove this  asserted  right,  I  shall  proceed  to  consider 
the  question,  whether  the  apostles  themselves  claim- 
ed the  power  of  administering  discipline,  and  were, 
therefore,  superior  to  the  presbyters.  The  inquiry 
will  be  pursued  with  reference  to  the  question, 
whether  they  administered  discipline  in  virtue  of 
their  oflice,  and  if  they  did,  whether  the  adminis- 
tration of  discipline  was  confined  to  them.  If  it 
was  not,  but  was  exercised  by  either  the  presby- 


162  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

ters  or  the  churches,  then  the  claim  of  the  "  bishop" 
is  invalid. 

The  argument  that  the  apostles  inflicted  dicipline 
on  the  churches,  is  thus  stated  by  Dr.  Onderdonk. 
p.  12.  "  In  1  Cor.  iv.  19—21 ;  v.  3—5 ;  2  Cor.  ii.  6  ; 
vii.  12;  X.  8;  xiii.  2,  10;  and  1  Tim.  i.  20 ;  are  re- 
corded inflictions  and  remissions  of  discipline  per- 
formed by  an  apostle,  or  threatenings  on  his  part, 
although  there  must  have  been  elders  in  Corinth, 
and  certainly  were  in  Ephesus." 

The  two  cases  referred  to  are  those  of  Corinth 
and  of  Ephesus.  They  will  be  examined  separately, 
as  they  are  the  only  cases  referred  to  in  the  New 
Testament.  The  purpose  for  which  these  cases  are 
adduced,  is  to  show  that  the  apostles  were  superior 
to  presbyters  in  poicer  and  rights,  and  the  alleged 
proof  is,  that  they  administered  discipline.  To  bear 
on  the  case,  therefore,  the  passages  must  prove  not 
only  that  they  exercised  discipline,  but  (1,)  that 
they  did  it  as  apostles,  or  in  virtue  of  the  apostolic 
office;  (2,)  that  they  did  it  in  churches  where  there 
were  presbyters;  and,  (3,)  that  neither  the  churches 
nor  presbyters  ever  administered  discipline  them- 
selves. Now  in  regard  to  these  passages  referred 
to  for  proof,  we  may  make  the  following  general 
remarks:  (1.)  there  were  certainly,  in  all,  fourteen 
apostles ;  and  if  we  may  credit  Episcopalians,  and 
i^ckon  Timothy,  and  Barnabas,  and  Silvanus,  and 
Apollos,  and  Andronicus,  and  Junia,  and  Titus,  and 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  163 

perhaps  half  a  dozen  others,  there  were  somewhat 
more  than  a  score  invested  with  this  office ;  yet  it  is 
remarkable,  that  the  only  cases  of  discipline  re- 
ferred to,  as  going  to  prove  the  superiority  of  the 
whole  college  of  apostles,  are  those  in  which  the 
apostle  Paul  only  was  concerned.  (2.)  There  are 
accounts  in  the  New  Testament  of  perhaps  some 
hundreds  of  churches;  and  yet,  we  meet  with  no 
instance  of  the  kind  of  discipline  relied  on,  except 
in  the  single  churches  of  Corinth  and  Ephesus.  It 
is  incredible,  that  there  should  have  been  no  cases 
of  discipline  except  in  those  churches.  But  if  there 
were,  the  presumption  is,  that  they  were  settled 
without  the  intervention  of  an  apostle.  (3.)  These 
very  cases,  as  will  presently  be  shown,  occurred  in 
churches  where  Titus  and  Timothy  were  present — 
both  regarded  by  Episcopalians  as  "  apostles"  and 
"  bishops" — and  thus  were  acts  of  manifest  disre- 
spect for  the  authority  of  those  prelates.  And  if 
the  fact,  that  the  discipline  was  administered  where 
there  were  presbyters  proves  that  the  apostle  Paul 
was  superior  to  them,  the  same  fact  proves  that  he 
was  superior  likewise  to  Timothy  and  Titus.  The 
course  of  the  argument  then  from  this  would  be, 
that  Paul  was  disposed  to  assume  the  whole  power 
into  his  own  hands,  and  to  set  aside  the  claims 
alike  of  bishops  and  presbyters.  It  has  a  very  un- 
desirable looking  towards  the  authority  claimed  by 
the  Papacy. 


164  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

The  two  cases  alleged  as  proof  that  the  apostles 
only  had  the  power  of  administering  discipline,  are 
those  at  Corinth  and  Ephesus.  Paul  wrote  fourteen 
epistles  to  eight  churches.  In  all  these  epistles, 
and  in  all  the  numerous  churches  of  which  he  had 
the  charge,  (2  Cor.  xi.  28,  "  the  care  of  all  the 
churches,")  these  are  the  only  instances  in  which  he 
was  called,  so  far  as  appears,  to  exercise  discipline. 
We  now  inquire,  whether  he  did  it  for  the  purpose 
of  showing  that  the  apostles  only  had  this  power? 

The  first  case  alleged,  is  that  at  Corinth.  The 
argument  in  regard  to  this  church  is  thus  stated  by 
Dr.  Onderdonk  in  his  "Answer,"  pp.  103,  104: 
"  There  must  have  been  elders  in  Corinth  when  the 
epistles  were  written  to  them.  We  prove  this  by  the 
language  of  Paul — '  As  a  wise  master-builder  I  have 
laid  the  foundation,  and  another  buildeth  thereon.' 
We  prove  it  by  the  language,  hyperbolical  indeed  in 
the  number,  but  decisive  of  the  fact — '  Though  ye 
have  ten  thousand  instructors  in  Christ.'  We  prove 
it  by  the  language,  in  reference  to  the  right  of  the 
clergy  to  be  maintained  by  their  flocks — '  If  others 
be  partakers  of  this  power  over  you,  are  not  we 
rather?'  We  prove  it  by  the  fact,  that  the  '  Lord's 
supper'  was  celebrated  in  that  church,  which  re- 
quired an  elder  at  least.  We  prove  it  by  the  Ian- 
guage  respecting  some  of  the  Corinthian  teachers — 
'  Are  they  ministers  of  Christ  ....  I  am  more.' 

"  Yet  without  noticing  these  elders  in  the  matter, 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  GHUHCH.  165 

SO  far  as  the  epistles  show,  though  they  doubtless 
were  noticed  and  consulted  as  much  as  courtesy 
and  their  pastoral  standing  made  proper — without 
putting  the  matter  into  their  hands,  or  even  passing 
ii  through  their  hands,  Paul  threatens,  inflicts,  and 
remits  discipline  among  the  people  of  their  charge. 
This  is  a  '  ministerial'  act.  And  Paul's  doing  it 
himself,  instead  of  committing  it  to  the  elders,  shows 
that  he,  an  apostle,  was  superior  to  them  in  minis- 
terial power  and  rights.  The  conclusion  is  una- 
voidable, if  the  fact  be  sustained.  Let  us  then  look 
to  the  fact — our  readers,  we  trust,  will  accompany 
us  patiently. 

"  '  But  /  will  come  to  you  shortly,  if  the  Lord 
will,  and  will  know  not  the  speech  of  them  that  are 
puffed  up,  but  the  power.  For  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  not  in  word,  but  in  poicer.  What  will  ye?  Shall 
/  come  to  you  with  a  rod,  or  in  love,  and  in  the 
spirit  of  meekness?'  1  Cor.  iv.  19 — 21. 

"  Here  is  '  power,'  and  a  '  rod'  to  be  exercised 
under  God's  '  kingdom'  or  sovereignty,  and  by  one 
man,  an  apostle,  if  those  who  were  '  pufl^ed  up'  did 
not  humble  themselves.  Here  is  church  discipline 
threatened,  not  by,  or  through  the  elders,  but  by  an 
apostle  individually,  and  with  the  rod  in  his  hands. 

"  '  For  /  verily,  as  absent  in  body,  but  present  in 
spirit,  have  judged  (in  the  margin  determined)  al- 
ready, as  though  I  were  present,  concerning  him 
that  hath  so  done  this  deed.  In  the  name  of  our 
15 


166        ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

Lord  Jesus  Clirist,  when  ye  are  gathered  together, 
and  my  spirit,  with  the  power  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  to  deliver  such  a  one  unto  Satan  for  the 
destruction  of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved 
in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus.'  1  Cor.  v.  3 — 5. 

"  Here  is  an  act  of  church  discipHne,  nothing  less 
than  excommunication ;  and  who  inflicts  it  ?  The 
elders  at  Corinth?  By  no  means.  Paul  does  it. 
The  apostle  'judges'  and  determines  to  'deliver  to 
Satan'  the  unworthy  Christian — and  to  do  it  when 
that  church,  and  '  his  spirit'  were  assembled  toge- 
ther, himself  being  in  that  sense  present  when  his 
sentence  was  executed.  Who  read  his  sentence  in 
the  assembly,  we  are  not  informed ;  probably  one 
of  the  elders.  Who  ejected  the  man  personally,  if 
that  mode  of  executing  the  sentence  was  added  to 
the  reading  of  it,  we  are  not  told.  It  is  enough  that 
the  'judgment,'  the  decision,  the  authority  for  the 
discipline,  was  that  of  an  apostle  alone,  and  evinced 
his  superiority,  in  ministerial  functions,  to  the  elders 
of  that  church.  The  excommunication  led,  of  course, 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  man  from  the  friendship  and 
kind  offices  of  the  brethren ;  and  this  is  called  his 
'  punishment  inflicted  of  many,'  in  the  passage  we 
are  next  to  quote. 

"  '  Sufficient  to  such  a  man  is  this  punishment, 
which  was  inflicted  of  many.  To  whom  ye  forgive 
any  thing,  /  forgive  also  ;  for  if/  forgave  any  thing, 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHTJRCH.  167 

to  whom  /  forfTcive  it,  for  your  sokes  forgave  lit  in 
the  person  o/*  Christ.'  2  Cor.  ii.  6,  10. 

"  Here  is  a  remission  of  discipline,  not  by  the 
ciders,  but  by  an  apostle  ;  he  pronounces  the  punish- 
ment to  be  '  sufficient.'  The  brethren  forgive  the 
scandal  of  the  man's  conduct,  he  having  become 
penitent ;  and  Paul  forgives  him,  by  removing  the 
sentence.  They  forgave  as  men  and  fellow-chris- 
tians — he  forgave  '  in  the  person  of  Christ.' 

"  With  such  illustrations  of  an  apostle's  power  to 
threaten  discipline,  to  inflict  discipline,  and  to  remit 
discipline,  we  shall  understand  the  force  of  the  other 
passages  in  the  epistles  to  the  Corinthians. 

"  '  Wherefore,  though  I  wrote  unto  you,  I  did  it 
not  for  his  cause  that  had  done  the  wrong,  nor  for 
his  cause  that  suffered  wrong,  but  that  our  care  for 
you  in  the  sight  of  God  might  appear  unto  you.'  2 
Cor.  vii.  12.  *  But  though  I  should  boast  somewhat 
more  of  our  authority,  (which  the  Lord  hath  given 
us  for  edification,  and  not  for  your  destruction,)  I 
should  not  be  ashamed.'  2  Cor.  x.  8.  *  I  told  you 
before,  and  foretell  you,  as  if  I  were  present  the 
second  time  ;  and  being  absent,  now  I  write  to  them 
which  heretofore  have  sinned,  and  to  all  other,  that 
if  I  come  again  /  will  not  spare.  Therefore  I  write 
these  things  being  absent,  lest  being  present  /  should 
use  sharpness,  according  to  the  power  which  the 
Lord  hath  "given  me  to  edifrcation,  and  not  to  de- 
struction.' 2  Cor.  xiii.  2.  10." 


168        ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

This  is  the  wliole  of  the  argument  from  the  case 
in  the  church  at  Corinth  as  expounded  by  Dr. 
Onderdonk.  This  argument  I  proceed  now  to  ex- 
amine, and  in  reply  would  observe :  That  there 
were  elders,  teachers,  ministers,  instructors  in  Co- 
rinth, is  placed  beyond  a  question,  by  the  nature  of 
the  case.  This  fact  I  do  not  intend  to  call  in  ques- 
tion. 

Further,  if  there  were  elders  there,  there  was 
also,  according  to  Episcopalians,  an  "  apostle,"  a 
prelatical  bishop,  there — to  wit,  Timothy.  This  is 
shown  by  a  quotation  from  the  epistle  itself,  relat- 
ing to  this  very  time,  and  in  immediate  connec- 
tion with  the  case  of  discipline.  1  Cor.  iv.  17. 
"  For  this  cause,  [that  is,  on  account  of  your  divided 
and  contending  state,]  have  I  sent  unto  you  Timo- 
theus,  who  is  my  beloved  son  and  faithful  in  the 
Lord,  who  shall  bring  you  into  remembrance  of  my 
ways  which  be  in  Christ,  as  I  teach  every  where  in 
every  church."  Now,  as  it  will  not  be  pretended 
by  Episcopalians  that  Timothy  was  not  an  "  apos- 
tle" and  a  prelate,  and  as  it  is  undeniable  that  he 
was  at  that  time  at  Corinth,  the  argument  will  as 
well  apply  to  set  aside  his  right  to  administer  disci- 
pline in  the  case,  as  that  of  the  elders.  Borrowing, 
then,  the  words  of  Dr.  Onderdonk,  I  would  say : 
'  Yet  without  noticing'  this  apostle  '  in  the  matter, 
so  far  as  the  epistles  show, — though'  he  was  '  doubt- 
less noticed  and  consulted,  as  much  as  courtesy  and* 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  rillTRCII.  1  G9 

his  apostolical  '  standing  made  proper;  without  put- 
ting the  matter  into'  his  '  hands,  or  even  passing  it 
through'  his  '  hands,  Paul  threatens,  inflicts,  and 
remits  discipline.     This  is  a  ministerial  act.     And 
Paul's  doing  it  himself,  instead  of  committing  it  to' 
Timothy,  '  shows  that  he,  an  apostle,  was  superior 
to'  him  '  in  ministerial  power  and  rights.' — Now  no 
Episcopalian  will  fail  to  be  at  once  deeply  impressed 
with  the  fallacy  of  this  reasoning,  in  regard  to  the 
"  apostle"  and  "  bishop"  Timothy.     And  yet,  it  is 
manifestly  just  as  pertinent  and  forcible  in  his  case, 
as  it  is  in  regard  to  the  elders  of  Corinth.    It  cannot 
be  pretended,  that  a  difference  existed,  because  the 
"  elders"  were  permanently  located  there,  and  Timo- 
thy not ;  for  the  argument  of  Dr.  Onderdonk  is,  that 
the  apostles  were  superior  as  apostles,  and  therefore 
it  made  no  difference  on  this  point,  whether  they 
were  at  Corinth,  or  at  Crete,  or  at  Antioch ;  they 
were  invested  with  the  apostolic  office  every  where. 
The  conclusion  which  I  derive  from  this  instance, 
and  from  the  fact  which  has  now  been  stated,  is, 
that  there  was  some  peculiarity  in  the  case  at  Co- 
rinth, which  rendered  the  ordinary  exercise  of  disci- 
pline by  presbyters  difficult ;  which  operated  equally 
against  any  interference  by  Timothy;  and  w^hich 
called  particularly  for  the  interposition  of  the  founder 
of  the  church,  and  of  an  inspired  apostle, — of  one 
clothed  with  authority  to  inflict  a  heavy  judgment 
here  denominated  "  delivering  unto  Satan  for  tho 
15* 


170  0RGANIZA.TION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

destruction  of  the  flesh,"  (1  Cor.  v.  5,) — a  power 
which  could  be  exercised  by  none  then  in  Corinth. 
The  next  inquiry  is,  whether  there  are  any  reasons 
for  this  opinion  ?  The  following  appear  to  be  en- 
tirely satisfactory : — 

(1.)  Paul  had  established  that  church,  (Acts  xviii. 
1 — 11,)  and  his  interference  in  cases  of  disciphne 
would  be  regarded  as  peculiarly  proper.  There 
would  be  a  natural  and  obvious  deference  to  the 
founder  of  the  church,  which  would  render  such  an 
interposition  in  the  highest  degree  appropriate.  This 
view  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  he  puts  his  autho- 
rity in  this  very  case  on  the  deference  which  was 
due  to  him  as  their  spiritual  father.  "  For  though 
ye  have  ten  thousand  instructors  in  Christ,  yet  have 
ye  not  many  fathers  ;  for  in  Christ  Jesus  /  have 
begotten  you  through  the  gospel."  1  Cor.  iv.  15. 

(2.)  The  circumstances  of  the  church  at  Corinth 
were  such,  evidently,  as  to  render  the  ordinary  ex- 
ercise of  discipline,  by  their  own  elders  without 
counsel  from  abroad,  and  the  judgment  of  one  who 
would  be  respected,  impossible.  They  were  rent 
into  parties ;  were  engaged  in  violent  contention  ; 
and  the  authority,  therefore,  of  one  portion  of  the 
*'  teachers"  and  "  instructors"  would  be  disregard- 
ed by  the  other.  Thus  no  harmonious  sentence 
could  be  agreed  upon,  and  no  judgment  of  a  party 
could  restore  peace.  An  attempt  to  exercise  disci- 
pline would  only  enkindle   party  animosity,   and 


OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  171 

produce  strife.  See  chap.  i.  11 — 17.  So  great, 
evidently,  was  the  contention,  and  so  hopeless  the 
task  of  allaying  it  by  any  ordinary  means,  that 
even  Timothy,  whom  Paul  had  sent  for  the  express 
purpose  of  bringing  them  into  remembrance  of  his 
ways,  (1  Cor.  iv.  17,)  could  have  no  hope,  by  his 
own  interference,  of  allaying  it.  It  was  natural, 
therefore,  that  it  should  be  referred  to  the  founder 
of  the  church,  and  to  one  who  had  the  power  of 
punishing  the  offender. 

(3.)  It  is  material  to  remark  that  this  was  not  an 
ordinary  case  of  discipline.  It  was  one  which  re- 
quired the  severest  exercise  of  authority,  and  in  a 
form  which  was  lodged  only  with  those  intrusted 
with  the  power  of  inflicting  diseases,  or,  as  it  is 
termed,  "  of  delivering  to  Satan  for  the  destruction 
of  the  flesh."  1  Cor.  v.  5.  Such  cases  would  in- 
evitably devolve  upon  the  apostles,  as  clothed  with 
miraculous  power;  and  such,  beyond  all  contro- 
versy, was  this  instance.  It  therefore  proves  no- 
thing about  the  ordinary  mode  of  administering  dis- 
cipline. This  offence  had  reached  such  a  degree  of 
enormity ;  it  had  been  suffered  to  remain  so  long, 
and  had  become  so  aggravated,  that  it  was  neces- 
sary to  interpose  in  this  awful  manner,  and  to  de- 
cide it.     Yet, 

(4.)  The  apostle  supposes,  that  they  ought  to  have 
exercised  the  usual  discipline  themselves.  This  is 
evident  from  a  comparison  of  the  following  passages : 


172  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

1  Cor.  V.  9,  10,  11,  12,  with  v.  2.  In  these  verses 
it  is  supposed,  that  they  did  themselves  usually  ex- 
ercise discipline.  Paul  (ver.  9)  gave  them  the  gene- 
ral direction,  not  to  keep  company  with  fornicators ; 
that  is,  to  exercise  discipline  on  those  who  did.  In 
ver.  1 1 ,  he  asks  them, — in  a  manner  showing  that 
the  affirmative  answer  to  the  question  expressed 
their  usual  practice, — whether  they  did  not  "judge 
those  that  were  within  ?"  that  is,  whether  they  did 
not  ordinarily  exercise  discipline  in  the  church? 
And  in  ver.  2,  he  supposes  that  it  ovght  to  have 
been  done  in  this  very  case ;  and  as  it  had  not  been 
done  by  them,  and  the  affair  had  assumed  special 
enormity,  he  exercised  the  miraculous  power  in- 
trusted to  him,  by  inflicting  on  the  offender  a  griev- 
ous disease.     Ver.  4,  5 ;  comp.  1  Cor.  xi.  30. 

(5.)  This  case  of  discipline  in  the  church  was, 
after  all,  in  fact  administered  by  the  church  itself, 
and  not  by  the  apostle  Paul.  This  is  conclusive 
from  vs.  3 — 5.  "  For  I  verily,  as  absent  in  body, 
but  present  in  spirit,  have  judged  already  as  though 
I  were  present,  concerning  him  that  hath  so  done 
this  deed ;  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
when  ye  are  gathered  together  and  my  spirit,  with 
the  power  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  deliver  such 
an  one  unto  Satan."  They  were  to  be  assembled 
for  the  purpose  of  administering  discipline,  and  the 
act  was  in  reality  to  be  administered  hy  the  church. 
The  apostle  did  not  assume  the  authority  to  do  it 


OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  173 

independently  of  the  church,  or  without  their  con- 
currence, and  though  the  offence  was  so  great  and 
glaring  that  there  was  no  doubt  as  to  the  propriety 
and  the  necessity  of  administering  the  discipline, 
yet  even  Paul  would  not  do  it,  though  in  a  church 
founded  by  himself,  in  any  way  which  would  invade 
their  own  proper  prerogatives.  It  is  to  be  remem- 
bered too  that  this  was  a  case  where  bodily  pains 
were  to  be  inflicted  by  miraculous  agency,  for  the 
offender  was  to  be  delivered  "  unto  Satan  for  the 
destruction  ofthefesh^'*''  and  that  even  in  this  case 
the  apostle  would  not  visit  a  member  of  the  church 
with  this  punishment  without  the  concurrence  of  the 
church  itself.  Even  Paul,  an  apostle,  and  the  spiri- 
tual father  of  the  church,  did  not  claim  the  authority 
to  remove  an  offender  except  through  their  agency. 
The  church  was  to  take  up  the  case ;  to  act  on  it ; 
to  pass  the  sentence ;  to  excommunicate  the  man. 
And  again  when  the  sentence  was  to  be  remitted, 
and  the  offender  was  to  be  restored,  it  was  to  be  by 
the  church  itself.  Even  an  apostle  did  not  assume 
the  prerogative  of  saying  that  the  offender  should 
be  reinstated  in  the  church ;  he  did  not  by  his  own 
authority  restore  him  to  his  former  good  standing : 
he  placed  himself  before  the  church  as  a  pleader, 
and  asked  them  to  do  it.  "  Sufficient  to  such  a  man 
is  this  punishment,  which  was  inflicted  of  many 
[not  of  one,  as  the  apostle,  but  by  the  collective 
church.]     So  that  contrariwise  ye  ought  rather  to 


174  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

forgive  him,  and  comfort  him,  lest  perhaps  such  an 
one  should  bo  swallowed  up  with  overmuch  sorrow. 
Wherefore  I  beseech  you  that  ye  would  confirm 
your  love  toward  him.  For  to  this  end  also  did  I 
write,  that  I  might  know  the  proof  of  you,  whether 
ye  be  obedient  in  all  things."  2  Cor.  iii.  6 — 9. 
Here  the  church  is  consulted  at  every  step,  and 
without  its  action  nothing  is  done.  In  judging  in 
the  case ;  in  excluding  the  member ;  and  again  in 
admitting  him  to  the  communion,  the  church  acts 
throughout.  The  apostle  does  nothing  himself.  I 
would  respectfully  ask  whether  this  is  the  method  of 
administering  discipline  by  those  who  claim  to  be 
the  "  successors"  of  the  apostles  in  the  "  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  V  When  discipline  is  to  be  ad- 
ministered in  the  "diocese"  of  Pennsylvania  or 
New  Jersey,  is  it  the  practice  for  the  "  bishop"  to 
make  a  representation  of  it  to  the  "  church"  in 
which  the  offence  was  committed,  and  to  ask,  or 
even  to  enjoin  the  church  to  "  gather  together  with 
his  spirit,"  and  to  deliver  the  offender  to  the  just 
measure  of  punishment?  And  again,  when  he 
judges  that  the  "  punishment  inflicted  of  many"  is 
"  sufficient,"  does  he  present  himself  at  the  door  of 
the  assembled  church  and  "  beseech"  them  to  re- 
ceive the  offending  member  again?  I  apprehend 
that  in  this  respect  there  has  been  a  slight  depar- 
ture from  the  "  apostolic"  rule  and  example.  The 
claim  of  Dr.  Onderdonk  is,  that  the  whole  sub- 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  175 

ject,  according  to  the  Scripture,  appertains  to  the 
*'  bishop."  The  matter  of  fact  is,  that  in  all  in- 
stances of  discipline  in  the  Episcopal  church,  he  is 
the  ultimate  arbiter,  and  if  a  case  is  brought  before 
him,  he  has  the  sole  right  of  decision,  and  neither 
church  nor  pastor  nor  both  can  set  his  verdict  aside. 

(6.)  It  is  evident  that  other  churches  did,  in  ordi- 
nary cases,  exercise  discipline  without  the  interven- 
tion of  an  apostle.  Thus  the  church  in  Thessalo- 
nica, — where  Episcopacy,  with  all  its  zeal,  has 
never  been  able  even  to  conjecture,  that  there  was 
a  diocesan  bishop, — was  directed  to  exercise  disci- 
pline, in  any  instance  where  the  command  of  the 
inspired  apostle  was  not  obeyed.  "  And  if  any  man 
obey  not  our  word  by  this  epistle,  note  that  man, 
and  have  no  company  with  him,  that  he  may  be 
ashamed."  2  Thess.  iii.  14. 

(7.)  The  circumstances  of  the  early  churches 
were  such,  as  to  make  the  apostolic  intervention 
proper,  and  even  indispensable,  without  supposing 
that  it  was  to  be  a  permanent  arrangement.  They 
were  ignorant  and  feeble.  They  had  had  little  op- 
portunity of  learnmg  the  nature  of  Christianity.  In 
most  cases,  their  founders  were  with  them  but  a  few 
weeks,  and  then  left  them  under  the  care  of  elders 
ordained  from  among  themselves.  (Comp.  Acts 
xiii.,  xiv.  et  passim.)  Those  elders  would  be  poorly 
qualified  to  discharge  the  functions  of  their  office ; 
for  they  would  be  but  little  elevated,  in  character 


176 


ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 


and  learning,  above  the  mass  of  the  people.  The 
churches  must  have  been  imperfectly  organized; 
unaccustomed  to  rigid  discipline ;  exposed  to  many 
temptations  ;  easily  drawn  into  sin ;  and  subject  to 
great  agitation  and  excitement.  Even  a  great  many 
subjects  in  morals  and  religion  which  may  now  be 
considered  as  settled,  would  appear  to  them  open  for 
debate ;  and  parties,  as  at  Corinth,  would  easily  be 
formed.  Comp.  Acts  xiv.,  xv. ;  Rom.  xiv.;  1  Cor. 
viii.  In  these  circumstances,  how  natural  was  it  for 
these  churches  to  look  for  direction  to  the  inspired 
men  who  had  founded  them ;  and  how  natural,  that 
such  persons  should  interpose  and  settle  important 
and  difficult  cases  of  discipline.  In  view  of  these 
obvious  considerations,  are  we  to  suppose,  that  the 
fact  that  the  apostle  Paul,  in  two  cases, — and  two 
such  cases  only  are  recorded, — directed  an  extra- 
ordinary act  of  discipline,  is  to  be  regarded  as  proof 
that  this  power  appertained  onli/  to  the  apostolic 
office,  and  was  to  be  a  permanent  arrangement  in 
the  church  ]  It  is  rather  a  matter  of  wonder  that 
but  two  cases  of  apostolic  interference  are  mention- 
ed, during  the  long  and  active  life  of  Paul ;  and  this 
is  some  evidence  that  the  churches  were  expected 
to  exercise  discipline,  and  actually  did  so,  on  their 
own  members. 

These  views  are  confirmed  by  what  is  known  to 
take  place  in  organizing  churches  in  heathen  coun- 
tries at  the  present  day.    In  a  conversation  with 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  177 

me,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Winslow,  one  of  the  American 
missionaries  then  stationed  at  Ceylon,  incidentally 
remarked,  that  the  missionaries  were  obliged  to  re- 
tain the  exercise  of  discipline  in  their  own  hands; 
and  that,  although  the  mission  had  been  established 
more  than  fifteen  years,  yet  it  had  never  been  in- 
trusted to  the  native  converts.  He  farther  observed, 
that  the  missionaries  had  been  endeavouring  to  find 
persons  to  whom  they  could  intrust  the  discipline  of 
the  church,  as  elders,  but  that  as  yet  they  had  not 
found  one.  The  native  converts  were  still  ignorant 
in  a  great  degree  of  the  laws  of  Christianity ;  they 
had  so  little  influence,  in  the  church  ;  they  were  so 
partial  to  each  other,  even  when  in  fault,  that  thus 
far,  discipline, — though  somewhat  frequent  acts 
were  necessary, — was  retained  in  the  hands  of  the 
missionaries.  Substantially  the  same  thing  must 
have  occurred  in  the  early  churches  in  Asia  Minor, 
in  Syria,  and  Greece.  Will  Episcopalians  infer, 
that  because  Mr.  Winslow,  Mr.  Meigs,  and  Dr. 
Scudder,  in  Ceylon,  have  found  it  necessary  to  re- 
tain the  power  of  administering  discipline  in  their 
own  hands,  that  therefore  they  are  diocesan  bishops, 
and  that  they  do  not  contemplate  that  the  churches 
in  Ceylon  shall  be  other  than  prelatical  ?  If  not, 
the  argument  in  the  case  of  the  church  in  Corinth 
should  be  allowed  to  have  no  weight. 

I  have  now  done  with  this  instance  of  discipline. 
I  have  shown,  that  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case 
16 


178  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

can  be  accounted  for,  without  any  such  conclusion, 
as  that  to  which  EpiscopaUans  are  desirous  of 
conducting  it.  I  turn,  therefore,  to  the  other  case 
of  discipline  referred  to — that  in  the  church  at 
Ephesus. 

The  case  is  thus  stated  in  1  Tim.  i.  20 :  "  Of 
whom  is  Hymeneus  and  Alexander;  whom  /  have 
delivered  unto  Satan,  that  they  may  learn  not  to 
blaspheme."  The  argument  of  Episcopalians  is 
stated  by  Dr.  Onderdonk  in  the  following  words: — 

"  There  '  certainly  were'  elders  in  Ephesus,  when 
Paul  wrote  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy.  We  prove 
this  fact  from  the  language,  'That  thou  mightest 
charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine:' 
teachers  then  there  were  in  that  church,  public 
teachers,  authorized  teachers,  and  such  are  not  the 
ruling  elders  or  deacons  of  parity,  nor,  (except  un- 
der the  bishop's  license,)  the  deacons  of  Episcopa- 
cy; therefore  both  these  parties,  the  only  ones  con- 
cerned with  the  tract,  must  agree  that  they  '  certain- 
ly' were  elders  or  presbyters.  We  prove  it  by  the 
Apostle's  condemnation  of  Hymeneus  and  Alexan- 
der, for  '  making  shipwreck  concerning  faith,'  i.  e. 
making  shipwreck  in  teaching  the  faith,  teaching  it 
publicly  and  with  authority — and  these  teachers 
were  elders,  for  the  reasons  just  given.  We  prove 
it  also  from  the  fact  that  there  were  elders  at  Ephe- 
sus, when  Paul  said  to  them,  in  Acts  xx.,  'Grievous 
wolves  shall  enter  in  among  you — also  of  your  own 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  1 79 

selves  shall  men  arise,  speaking  perverse  things;' 
Paul  thus  declaring  that  the  false  teaching  at  Ephe- 
sus  would  be  by  elders,  and  would  occur  afterward, 
it  not  having  occurred  as  yet :  that  the  false  teach- 
ing would  be  by  elders,  seems  decisive  in  favour  of 
the  assertion  that  the  false  teaching  there  was  by 
elders,  as  we  have  just  maintained:  that  the  false 
teaching  was  yet  to  occur,  when  there  were  already 
elders  in  Ephesus  addressed  by  Paul,  in  Acts  xx., 
is  proof  that  that  church  had  its  elders  when  this 
evil  indoctrination  had  occurred,  which  was  the  case 
when  Paul  first  wrote  to  Timothy,  as  our  extracts 
from  that  epistle  show.  This  latter  argument  we 
consider  final :  the  epistle  enumerates,  as  errors  then 
existing  there,  *  fables,  endless  genealogies,  swerving 
from  charity  and  faith  to  vain  jangling,  questions 
and  strifes  of  words,  perverse  disputings  of  men  of 
corrupt  minds  and  destitute  of  the  truth,  profane  and 
vain  babblings,  and  oppositions  of  science  falsely  so 
called;'  yvoissai,  perhaps  gnosticism,  as  Hammond 
argues.  This  was  the  state  of  things  at  Ephesus, 
when  Paul  wrote  the  epistle.  But  when  he  address- 
ed the  '  elders,'  in  Acts  xx.,  he  spoke  of  nothing  of 
the  sort  as  having  existed,  or  as  existing  then,  but 
only  as  to  exist  at  ^future  time.  If  then  there  were 
elders  there  before  these  mischiefs  appeared,  there 
'  certainly  were'  when  they  were  afterward  developed 
— i.  e.  when  Paul  wrote  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy. 
"  Well  then — is  the  discipline  of  the  church  at 


180        ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

Ephesus  intrusted  to  these  elders?  Nothing  Uke  it. 
As  in  the  case  of  the  Corinthians,  that  '  power  was 
given  by  the  Lord'  to  an  apostle,  and  only  an  apos- 
tle exercised  it.  It  is  the  apostle  who  inflicts  the 
discipline;  the  elders  do  not  appear  in  the  matter. 
And  discipline  is  a  ministerial  function,  and  excom- 
munication its  highest  exercise."    (Answer,  p.  13.) 

In  reply  to  this  argument,  I  make  the  following 
observations. 

(1.)  It  occurs  in  a  charge  to  Timothy — that 
Timothy,  who,  on  the  supposition  of  Episcopalians, 
was  an  apostle  co-ordinate  with  Paul  himself;  Tim- 
othy, the  prelate  of  Ephesus.  If  Timothy  was  an 
apostle,  and  a  diocesan  bishop,  and  if  the  exercise  of 
discipline  pertained  to  an  apostle  and  bishop,  why  did 
Paul  take  the  matter  into  his  own  hands?  Why  not 
refer  it  to  Timothy,  and  repose  suflicient  confidence 
in  him  to  believe  that  he  was  competent  to  fulfil 
this  part  of  his  Episcopal  office?  Would  it  now  be 
regarded  as  courteous  for  the  '  bishop'  of  the  diocese 
of  Ohio,  to  interpose  and  inflict  an  act  of  discipline 
on  some  Hymeneus  or  Alexander  of  the  diocese  of 
Pennsylvania?  And  would  there  be  as  cordial  sub- 
mission of  the  bishop  of  the  diocese  of  Pennsylva- 
nia, as  there  was  of  the  bishop  of  the  diocese  of 
Ephesus?  If  Timothy  was  at  Ephesus,  and  if  the 
case  of  discipline  occurred  at  the  time  which  Dr. 
Onderdonk  supposes,  this  case  appears  very  much 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  181 

as  if  Paul  regarded  Timothy  as  neither  an  apostle 
nor  a  prolate. 

(2.)  If  the  exercise  of  the  authority  in  this  case 
of  discipline  by  Paul  proves  that  the  presbyters  at 
Ephesus  had  no  right  to  administer  discipline,  for 
the  same  reason  it  proves  that  Timothy  had  not  that 
right.  By  the  supposition  of  Episcopalians,  Timo- 
thy was  there,  as  well  as  the  presbyters.  The  as- 
sumption of  the  authority  by  Paul  proves  as  much 
that  it  did  not  belong  to  Timothy,  as  that  it  did  not 
belong  to  the  presbyters. 

(3.)  This  was  a  case  similar  to  that  which  oc- 
curred at  Corinth.  It  was  an  act  of  discipline 
which  supposed  the  infliction  of  the  judgment  of 
God  by  a  miraculous  agency.  "Whom  I  have  de- 
livered unto  Satan,  that  they  may  not  learn  to  blas- 
pheme," Compare  this  account  with  the  record  of 
the  case  in  Corinth,  (1  Cor.  v.  5,)  and  it  is  evident, 
that  this  was  not  an  ordinary  act  of  discipline,  but 
was  such  as  implied  the  direct  infliction  of  punish- 
ment by  the  Almighty.  That  such  inflictions  were 
intrusted  to  the  hands  of  the  apostles,  I  admit;  and 
that  Paul,  not  Timothy,  inflicted  this,  proves  that 
the  latter  was  neither  an  apostle  nor  a  prelate. 

(4.)  Dr.  Onderdonk  supposes,  that  this  occurred 
at  Ephesus,  and  while  Timothy  was  there.  But 
what  evidence  is  there  of  this?  It  is  neither  aflirm- 
ed  that  the  transaction  was  at  Ephesus,  nor  that 
Timothy  was  present.  His  argument  proceeds  on 
16* 


182        ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

the  assumption,  that  Timothy  was  bishop  there 
when  the  epistle  was  written,  and  that  the  case  of 
discipline  occurred  there.  The  only  possible  pre- 
tence of  ^^roo/"  of  this  would  be  the  subscription  at 
the  end  of  the  second  epistle.  But  that  subscription 
has  no  authority  whatever;  and  it  is  not  to  be  as- 
sumed^ hut  proved,  that  Timothy  was  there  in  the 
capacity  of  a  prelate,  or  there  at  all,  when  this 
epistle  was  written  to  him.  The  demonstration, 
that  a  bishop  only  exercised  discipline,  it  must  be 
admitted,  rests  on  slender  grounds,  if  this  be  all. 

(5.)  But  if  this  case  did  occur  at  Ephesus,  what 
evidence  is  there,  that  it  occurred  at  the  time  that 
bishop  Onderdonk  supposes?  The  account  in  the 
epistle  to  Timothy  by  no  means  fixes  the  time  of 
the  transaction,  "Whom  I  have  delivered  (rtapiSwxa) 
unto  Satan."  It  was  already  done;  and  the  pre- 
sumption is,  that  it  was  done  when  Paul  was  him- 
self present  with  them.  It  is  morally  certain,  that 
it  was  not  an  act  of  discipline  that  was  then  to  be 
performed. 

My  readers  have  now  the  whole  case  before 
them.  Episcopacy  affirms  that  prelates  only  have 
the  power  of  administering  discipline.  It  affiniis 
that  the  churches  are  prohibited  from  exercising  it 
on  their  owji  members;  that  those  appointed  to 
preach  the  gospel,  to  administer  the  sacraments, 
and  to  be  pastors  of  the  flock,  and  who  may  there- 
fore be  supposed  to  understand  the  cases  of  dis- 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  183 

cipline,  and  best  qualified  to  administer  it,  have  no 
right  to  exercise  this  act  of  government  over  their 
own  members,  but  that  this  exclusive  prerogative 
belongs  to  a  stranger,  and  a  foreigner — a  prclatical 
bishop— whom  the  churches  seldom  see,  and  who 
must  be,  in  a  great  degree,  unacquainted  with  their 
peculiar  wants  and  character.  All  power  of  dis- 
cipline, in  an  entire  diocese  of  some  hundreds  of 
churches,  is  to  be  taken  away  from  the  churches 
themselves,  and  from  the  pastors,  and  committed  to 
a  solitary,  independent  man,  who,  from  the  nature 
of  the  circumstances,  can  have  little  acquaintance 
with  the  case,  and  possess  few  of  the  qualifications 
requisite  for  the  intelligent  performance  of  this  duty. 
And  does  the  reader  ask.  What  is  the  authority  for 
this  assumption  of  power?  Why  are  the  churches, 
and  their  pastors  disrobed  of  this  office,  and  reduced 
to  the  condition  of  humble  dependents,  at  the  feet  of 
the  prelate?  Let  him,  in  astonishment,  learn.  It 
is  not  because  there  is  any  command  to  this  effect  in 
the  New  Testament;  it  is  not  because  there  is  any 
declaration  implying  that  it  would  be  so ;  it  is  not  by 
any  affirmation  that  it  ever  teas  so.  This  is  the 
reason,  and  this  is  all: — The  apostle  Paul,  in  two 
cases,  and  in  both  instances  over  the  heads  of  pres- 
byters, (and  over  the  head  of  "bishop"  Timothy,  too,) 
delivered  men  "  to  Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the 
flesh,  that  they  might  learn  not  to  blasplieme ;"  and 
THEREFORE,   " bishop"   Ondcrdonk,  and  "bishop" 


184  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

Doane,  and*' bishop"  Mcllvaine,  only,  have  power  to 
administer  discipline  in  all  the  churches  in  Penn- 
sylvania, in  New  Jersey,  and  in  Ohio;  and  there- 
fore, all  the  acts  of  discipline  exercised  by  Presby- 
terians, Methodists,  Baptists,  and  Congregationalists, 
in  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  and  Ohio,  are  null 
and  void.  The  disposal  of  such  antecedents  and 
consequents  may  be  safely  left  to  all  who  hold, 
that  "no  argument  is  worth  taking  into  the  account, 
that  has  not  a  clear  and  palpable  bearing  on  the 
naked  topic — -the  Scriptural  evidence  of  Episcopa- 
cy."    Tract,  p.  3. 

But  I  have  not  done  with  this  subject.  I  shall 
yet  show,  (ch.  iv.  §  2.  2,)  not  only,  that  there  is  no 
evidence  that  the  apostles  exclusively  exercised 
discipline,  but  that  there  is  positive  proof  that  all 
the  acts  of  discipline  were  in  fact  exercised  by  the 
presbyters,  and  the  churches. 

I  have  now  examined  the  essential  point  in  Epis- 
copacy; for,  if  the  claims  which  are  arrogated  for 
prelatical  bishops  are  unfounded,  the  system,  as  a 
system,  is  destroyed.  I  have  examined  the  solitary 
passage  urged  directly  in  its  favour,  "  the  apostles 
and  elders,"  "  the  apostles,  and  elders,  and  breth- 
ren ;"  the  claims  set  up  in  favour  of  their  exclusive 
right  to  administer  discipline,  and  to  administer  the 
rite  of  confirmation.  I  have  shown,  if  I  mistake 
not,  that  none  of  the  passages  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment relied  on  furnish  support  for  the  stupendous 


OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  185 

claims  set  up  in  favour  of  the  prelate.  If  they  do 
not,  then,  by  the  uniform  admission  of  Episcopa- 
lians, and  by  the  special  concession  of  Dr.  Onder- 
donk,  there  is  no  authority  for  Episcopacy  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  it  must  be  regarded  as  wholly  an 
arrangement  of  human  origin.  "If  we  cannot," 
says  Dr.  Onderdonk,  (Tract,  p.  11,)  authenticate 
the  claims  of  the  Episcopal  office, ^^  [the  office  of  the 
prelate,]  "  we  will  surrender  those  of  our  deacons, 
and  let  all  power  be  confined  to  the  one  office  of  pres- 

X'ers."  It  is  submitted  to  the  reader  whether  we 
not  now  prepared  to  avail  ourselves  of  this  con- 
cession, and  to  draw  the  conclusion  that  "  the  claims 
of  the  Episcopal  office"  are  not  made  out,  and  that 
the  ministers  of  the  gospel  should  be  regarded  as 
equal  in  grade  and  honour.  If  so,  the  controversy 
should  be  considered  as  at  an  end. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  CHURCH  AS   ESTABLISH- 
ED BY  THE  SAVIOUR  AND  THE  APOSTLES. 

Having  thus  examined  all  the  Scriptural  argu- 
ments which  are  adduced  by  Episcopalians  in  fa- 
vour of  the  peculiar  organization  of  their  church, 
the  argument  might  be  left  here,  for,  if  the  positions 


186  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

which  have  been  taken  are  correct,  the  principal 
object  contemplated  is  accomplished.  If  there  is  no 
Scriptural  authority  for  prelacy ;  none  for  an  apos- 
tolical succession ;  none  for  confirmation ;  none  for 
the  right  which  the  "  bishop"  claims  for  administer- 
ing discipline,  then  it  follows  that  there  is  nothing 
in  the  system  which  makes  it  binding  on  the  churches 
of  the  Redeemer,  and  that  the  whole  arrangement 
of  the  Episcopacy  is  one  of  human  prudence. 

But  it  is  often  objected  by  Episcopalians  that  all 
the  efforts  of  those  who  doubt  the  claims  of  the 
'  Episcopate'  are  employed  to  demolish  that  system 
without  proposing  any  substitute  in  its  place;  and 
that,  while  so  much  zeal  is  evinced  to  prove  that 
their  claims  are  not  founded  on  the  authority  of 
Scripture,  nothing  is  done  to  show  what  was  the 
plan  on  which  the  church  in  the  New  Testament 
was  organized.  It  is  proposed,  therefore,  to  collect 
and  arrange  the  scattered  notices  on  this  point  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  to  inquire  whether  it  was 
the  design  of  the  Saviour  to  prescribe  any  form 
of  church  government  which  should  be  univer- 
sally binding  on  his  church.  The  first  point  will 
relate  to  the  officers  referred  to  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment; the  second  to  the  actual  organization  and 
government  of  the  churches. 

Sect.  1. — The  Officers  of  the  Church. 
The  officers  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament, 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  187 

in  the  organization  of  the  church,  may  be  divided 
into  two  great  classes.  1.  Those  which  were  in- 
tended to  be  temporary ;  and  2.  Those  whicli  are  so 
mentioned  as  to  show  that  they  were  designed  to  be 
permanent. 

I.  Those  wliich  were  designed  to  be  temporary. 

Under  this  class  are  to  be  ranked, 

(1.)  The  apostles,  properly  so  called,  who  were 
appointed  by  the  Saviour  to  be  his  companions ;  to 
be  wiTivEssEs  of  what  he  taught ;  and  to  be  wit- 
is'EssEs  of  his  resurrection.  See  this  demonstrated 
in  ch.  ii.  This  office,  from  its  nature,  was  tempo- 
rary, and  was  confined  to  those  who  had  been  with 
him  during  his  public  ministry,  and  whom  he  had 
specially  called  for  this  purpose,  with  Matthias,  who 
was  chosen  to  fill  the  vacated  place  of  Judas,  (Acts 
i.)  and  the  apostle  Paul,  who  was  called  to  the  spe- 
cial work  of  the  apostleship  among  the  Gentiles, 
and  permitted  to  see  the  Saviour  in  a  miraculous 
manner  after  his  ascension,  in  order  that  he  might 
have  the  appropriate  qualification  of  an  apostle.  1 
Cor.  ix.  This  office  was  one  in  which,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  there  could  be  no  succession, 
unless  the  "  succession"  was  kept  up  by  a  miracu- 
lous manifestation  of  the  Saviour  to  each  one  in  the 
"  succession,"  as  in  the  case  of  the  apostle  Paul,  to 
qualify  him  to  be  a  "  witness"  that  the  Redeemer 
was  risen   from   the  dead.     In  reference  to  this 


188  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

point,  I  may  briefly  sum  up  all  that  has  been 
shown  to  be  contained  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  case  stands  thus,  (1.)  There  is  no  cornmand 
in  the  New  Testament  to  the  apostles,  to  transmit 
to  others  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office. 
If  there  had  been,  the  industry  of  Dr.  Onderdonk 
would  have  discovered  it  and  called  it  to  our  atten- 
tion. If  the  peculiarity  of  the  office  was  to  be 
transmitted,  it  was  required  that  such  a  command 
should  be  given.  But  it  has  not  been  pretended  that 
any  such  command  has  been  discovered.  (2.)  There 
is  no  affirmation  that  it  would  be  thus  transmitted. 
If  there  had  been.  Dr.  Onderdonk's  tract  would  not 
have  been  so  barren  on  this  point.  And  we  may 
ask  here  whether  it  is  credible,  that  the  apostles 
were  bishops  of  a  superior  order,  and  that  it  was 
designed  that  all  the  church  should  be  subject  to  an 
order  of  men  "  superior  in  ministerial  rank  and 
power,"  deriving  their  authority  from  the  apostles  ; 
and  yet,  not  the  slightest  command  thus  to  transmit 
it,  and  not  the  slightest  hint  that  it  woidd  he  done  1 
(3.)  It  was  impossible  that  the  peculiarity  of  the 
apostolic  office  should  be  transmitted.  I  have  shown, 
not  by  assumptions,  but  by  a  large  array  of  passa- 
ges of  Scripture,  what  that  peculiarity  was, — to 
bear  witness  to  the  great  events  which  went  to  prove 
that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  and  that  he  rose  from 
the  dead.  The  peculiarity  of  that  office,  as  speci- 
fied by  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  chosen  apostles,  by 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  1  89 

Paul,  and  by  the  whole  college,  could  is'ot  be  trans- 
mitted ;  for  no  prelate  is,  or  can  be,  a  witness^  in 
the  sense,  and  for  the  purpose,  for  which  they  were 
originally  designated,  unless  he  can  make  the  affir- 
mation which  Paul  did  in  proof  that  he  was  an 
apostle.  "  Am  I  not  an  apostle  ?  Have  I  not  seen 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord?"  1  Cor.  ix.  1.  (4.)  I  have 
examined  the  case  of  Timothy,  of  Titus,  of  Barna- 
bas, and  of  the  "  angels"  of  the  churches, — the 
slender  basis  on  which,  in  the  absence  of  direct 
command  to  continue  the  succession,  and  direct 
affirmation  that  it  would  be  continued,  the  whole 
fabiic  of  Episcopacy  has  been  reared.  a 

The  conclusion  to  which  we  have  come  is,  that 
while  this  was  a  most  important  and  wise  arrange- 
ment in  the  organization  of  the  church,  there  is  not 
the  slightest  evidence  that  the  Redeemer  intended 
that  it  should  be  perpetual ;  that  it  is  impossible  to 
make  out  the  fact  of  such  a  "  succession,"  and  con- 
sequently that  the  whole  claim  that  the  "  bishop" 
is  the  "  successor"  of  the  apostles  is  a  usurpation  of 
authority  in  the  church.  The  organization  of  the 
Christian  church  is  complete  without  any  such 
*'  succession," — or  such  an  officer — as  really  as  it 
is  without  the  "  order"  of  "  deaconesses,"  and  with- 
out the  *' order"  of  the  "  seventy  disciples." 

(2.)  There  were  special  ministers  sent  out  for  a 
temporary  purpose  by  the  Lord  Jesus  himself. 
"After  these  things  the  Lord  appointed  other  se- 
17 


190  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

venty  also,  and  sent  them  two  and  two  before  his 
face  into  every  city  and  place,  whither  he  himself 
would  come."  Luke  x.  1.  These  persons  were 
(1.)  evidently  appointed  for  a  different  purpose  from 
the  apostles.  The  apostles,  as  has  been  shown, 
were  to  be  with  him ;  to  hear  his  instructions ;  to 
be  witnesses  of  his  miracles,  his  sufferings,  his 
death,  and  his  resurrection;  and  then  to  go  and 
proclaim  those  things  to  the  world;  and,  having 
done  this,  the  apostolic  office  was  to  cease.  The 
object  of  the  appointment  of  the  "  seventy"  is  ex- 
pressed, and  we  have  no  right  to  go  beyond  that  in 
intejjpreting  their  commission.  They  were  to  "  go 
two  and  two  into  every  city  and  place,  2vhither  he 
himself  xoould  come.''''  This  was  the  extent  of  their 
commission.  It  was  to  proclaim  the  coming  of 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  prepare  the  way  for  his 
personal  preaching  there,  evidently  by  calling  the 
minds  of  the  people  to  his  claims,  to  the  remarka- 
ble character  of  his  preaching,  to  his  power  in  work- 
ing miracles,  and  to  the  evidence  that  he  was  the 
Messiah.  There  is  no  commission  to  go  out  of  Ju- 
dea — as  the  Saviour  evidently  did  not  design  him- 
self to  go  out  of  Judea ;  and  there  is  no  commission 
to  the  appointment  as  a  permanent  office.  (2.)  They 
were  appointed  to  a  temporary  office.  This  appears 
from  the  nature  of  the  commission,  and  from  the 
fact  that  there  is  no  reference  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  any  persons  who  claimed  to  be  the  '•  sue- 


OF  THE  APosTOT-ir  rinmrn.  101 

ccssors"  of  the  "  seventy."  There  is  no  record  of 
their  number  having  been  filled  up  when  one  of 
them  died ;  nor  is  there  any  intimation  whatever  of 
the  permanency  of  their  office.  We  never  hear 
them  aUudcd  to  as  having  a  fixed  office  in  the 
church ;  nor  in  the  appointment  of  officers  is  there 
any  intimation  that  they  were  to  succeed  the  "  se- 
venty" disciples.  In  the  accounts  of  the  numerous 
churches  which  were  organized  by  the  apostles, 
there  is  no  allusion  to  them,  nor  does  it  appear  to 
have  ever  occurred  that  any  reference  was  to  be 
had  to  them  in  the  organization  of  a  church. 

If  this  be  so,  and  that  it  is,  no  one  acquainted 
with  the  New  Testament  will  deny,  then  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  "  seventy  disciples"  should  not  be 
urged  as  an  argument  to  prove  that  the  ministry 
was  established  in  "  three  orders  of  bishops,  priests^ 
and  deacons."  Between  the  appointment  of  the 
seventy,  as  the  record  is  made  in  Luke,  and  the  of- 
fice of  a  ^^priesf^  in  the  Episcopal  church,  there 
is  no  resemblance  whatever.  There  is  no  evidence, 
as  has  been  remarked,  that  it  was  to  be  permanent; 
there  is  no  intimation  that  they  were  to  be  subject 
to  the  "  bishops" — the  apostles,  or  that  they  might 
not  ordain,  or  might  not  administer  the  rite  of  con- 
firmation, or  that  they  might  not  administer  disci- 
pline, or  that  they  might  not  take  the  oversight  of  a 
"  diocese."  All  this  is  language  unknown  to  the 
New  Testament ;  and  the  simple  and  obvious  ac- 


192  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVKRNMENT 

count  of  the  appointment  of  the  "  seventy"  is,  that 
they  were  employed  by  the  Saviour  to  prepare  the 
way  for  his  personal  ministry  in  the  places  where 
he  proposed  to  go. 

(3.)  There  were  in  the  apostolic  church,  also, 
"j^ropAe/^"  who,  unless  they  were  classed  un- 
der the  denomination  of  "teachers,"  were  design- 
ed only  to  be  temporary  in  the  duration  of  their  of- 
fice. Acts  xiii.  1.  "There  were  in  the  church  at 
Antioch  certain  prophets  and  teachers."  xv.  32. 
"  And  Judas  and  Silas  being  prophets  also  them- 
selves." 1  Cor.  xii.  28.  "  God  hath  set  some  in  the 
church — secondarily — prophets^  Yer.  29.  "  Are 
q\\  prophets?''''  Eph.  iv.  11.  ^'And  he  gave  some 
prophets^  1  Cor.  xiv..  3.  "  He  that  prophesieth 
speaketh  unto  men  to  edification,  and  exhortation, 
and  comfort."  Ver.  5.  "  I  would  that  ye  all  spake 
with  tongues,  but  rather  that  ye  prophesied;  for 
greater  is  he  that  prophesieth  than  he  that  speaketh 
with  tongues."  Ver.  22,  "  Tongues  are  for  a  sign, 
not  to  them  that  believe,  but  to  them  that  believe 
not ;  but  prophecy  serveth  not  for  them  that  believe 
not,  but  for  them  that  believe."  Ver.  29.  "  Let  the 
prophets  speak  two  or  three,  and  let  the  others 
judge."  There  is  some  evidence  that  the  persons 
here  referred  to  were  under  the  direct  inspiration  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  they  were,  therefore,  ap- 
pointed in  an  extraordinary  manner  for  the  church 
in  the  circumstances  in  which  it  was  placed  when 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CIirRClI.  193 

newly  founded,  and  when  it  needed  special  guidance 
£llid  direction.  There  is  no  evidence  whatever  that 
the  office  of  "  prophet"  was  intended  to  be  perma- 
nent. 

(4.)  Under  this  denomination  of  officers  that  were 
not  designed  to  be  permanent,  may  be  ranked  also 
the  office  of  deaconess.  Rom.  xvi.  1.  "I  commend 
unto  you  Phebe,  our  sister,  which  is  a  servant — 
8idxovop—of  the  church  which  is  at  Cenchrea." 
Comp.  1  Tim.  v.  3,  9—11.  Titus  ii.  3,  4.  Deacon- 
esses appear  to  have  been  commonly  aged  widows, 
sustaining  a  fair  reputation,  and  qualified  to  guide  and 
instruct  those  who  were  young  and  inexperienced. 
The  "  apostolical  constitutions"  say,  "  Ordain  a 
deaconess  who  is  faithful  and  holy,  for  the  minis- 
tries toward  the  women."  B.  iii.  Pliny,  in  his  cele- 
brated letter  to  Trajan,  says,  when  speaking  of  the 
efforts  which  he  made  to  obtain  information  re- 
specting the  opinions  and  practices  of  Christians, 
"  I  deemed  it  necessary  to  put  two  maid-servants, 
who  are  called  ministrae,  [deaconesses]  to  the  tor- 
ture, in  order  to  ascertain  what  is  truth."  The 
reason  for  their  appointment  in  the  early  churches 
of  the  Gentiles  was  probably  the  fact,  that  in  the 
East  females  are  kept  secluded  from  men,  and  are 
not  permitted  to  mingle  freely  in  society,  as  is 
the  case  in  the  western  nations.  It  became  neces- 
sary, therefore,  to  appoint  aged  and  experienced 
females  to  instruct  the  young  of  their  sex,  to  visit 
17* 


194  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

the  sick,  and  to  distribute  to  them  the  alms  of  the 
church.  From  the  nature  of  the  case,  however, 
the  necessity  of  this  office  would  not  exist  in  those 
countries  where  these  customs  did  not  prevail;  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  it  was  designed 
to  be  permanent  in  the  church. 

II.  Permanent  officers  mentioned  in  the  organi- 
zation of  the  church  in  the  New  Testament.  These 
officers  are, 

(1.)  Those  designated  by  various  terms,  denoting 
that  they  were  set  apart  or  appointed  to  preach 
the  gospel,  to  impart  instruction,  and  to  take  the 
oversight  of  the  flock.  This  class  of  persons  is 
mentioned  under  different  appellations — as  preach- 
ers, bishops,  pastors,  teachers,  evangelists ;  but  all 
of  them  in  such  a  connexion  and  form  that  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  arrangement  was  intended  to  be  per- 
manent. 

(a)  The  office  of  preacher  was  designed  to  be 
permanent,  for  the  Saviour  gave  direction  to  his 
apostles  to  "go  into  all  the  world  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature,"  assuring  them  that 
he  would  be  "  with  them  alway,  even  unto  the  end 
of  the  world."  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20.  Comp.  Rom.  x. 
14,  15.  2  Tim.  iv.  2.  That  the  office  was  designed 
to  be  permanent,  is  made  certain  from  the  instruction 
which  Paul  gives  to  Timothy.  "And  the  things 
which  thou  hast  heard  of  me  among  many  wit- 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  195 

nesses,  the  same  commit  thou  to  faithful  men,  who 
s-hall  be  able  to  teach  others  also."  2  Tim.  ii.  2. 

(b)  The  office  of  bishop,  or  overseer  of  the  flock, 
in  the  true  scriptural  sense,  was  designed  to  be  per- 
mancnt  also.  "  The  name  '  bishop,'  which  now  de- 
signates the  highest  grade  in  the  ministry,"  says 
Dr.  Ondcrdonk,  (p.  12,)  "  is  not  appropriated  to 
that  office  in  Scripture.  That  name  is  given  to  the 
middle  office  or  presbyters ;  and  all  that  we  read 
in  the  New  Testament  concerning  *  bishops^  is  to  be 
regarded  as  appertaining  to  that  jniddle  grade. 
It  was  after  the  apostolic  age  that  the  name  '  bishop' 
was  taken  from  the  second  order  and  appropriated 
to  the  first."  The  office  of  "  bishop,"  as  it  was 
used  in  the  "  apostolic  age," — denoting  an  "  over- 
seer,"— is  designed  to  be  permanent  in  the  church. 
This  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  instructions  were 
given  which  implied  this.  "  If  a  man  desire  the 
office  of  a  bishop,  he  desireth  a  good  work.  A 
bishop,  then,  must  be  blameless,  the  husband  of 
one  wife,  vigilant,  sober,  of  good  behaviour,  given 
to  hospitality,  apt  to  teach,  not  given  to  wine." 
1  Tim.  iii.  1—7.  Titus  i.  7—9.  Acts  xx.  28.  Phil, 
i.  1.  The  appointment  of  bishops  in  the  churches 
by  the  apostles^  and  the  instructions  to  Timothy  in 
regard  to  their  qualifications,  prove  that  it  was  un- 
derstood that  the  arrangement  w^as  to  be  permanent. 
No  such  instructions  are  given  in  regard  to  the  qua- 
lifications  of  "  apostles,"    or  of  prelates,   as  the 


196  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

"  successors  of  the  apostles,"  or  of  those  who  were 
to  succeed  the  "  seventy  disciples,"  or  of  those  who 
were  to  succeed  the  "  prophets."  Those  things 
were,  therefore,  of  a  temporary  character ;  this  was 
a  fixed  arrangement. 

(c)  The  office  of  pastor  was  designed  to  be  per- 
manent— for  the  same  reason  that  instructions  are 
given  which  imply  this — and  that  the  office  is  men- 
tioned in  such  a  connexion  as  to  show  that  this  was 
designed.  "  And  he  gave  some  apostles  ;  and  some, 
prophets  ;  and  some,  evangelists  ;  and  some,  pastors 
and  teachers :  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for 
the  work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the 
body  of  Christ ; — till  we  all  come  in  the  unity  of 
the  faith  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God 
unto  a  perfect  man."  Eph.  iv.  11,  12.  This  pass- 
age proves  that  some  at  least,  of  these  offices  were 
to  be  permanent  in  the  church.  That  it  was  de- 
signed that  the  pastoral  office  should  be  one  of 
them,  is  apparent  from  the  use  of  the  word  applied 
to  the  office  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that  it  was  a 
permanent  arrangement.  The  word  "  pastor,"  in- 
deed, in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  Eph.  iv.  11, 
perhaps  does  not  elsewhere  occur  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, nor  have  our  translators  rendered  the  same 
word  pastor  elsewhere.  It  occurs  often  in  the  sense 
of  shepherd,  and  is  uniformly,  elsewhere,  so  ren- 
dered. Math.  ix.  36.  xxv.  32.  xxvi.  31.  Mark  vi. 
34.  xiv.  27.  Luke  ii.  8,  15, 18,  20.  John  x.  2,  11, 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  197 

12,  14,  16.  Heb.  xiii.  20.  1  Pet.  ii.  25.  But  the 
verb  (rtoi/jiaivu)  is  so  used  as  to  denote  that  the  office 
was  to  be  of  a  permanent  character.  John  xxi.  16. 
"  He  saith  to  him,  Feed — Tioi^aivt — my  sheep." 
This  was  indeed  addressed  to  Peter,  but  that  he 
understood  it  as  contemplating  a  permanent  ar- 
rangement in  the  church,  is  apparent  from  his  own 
instructions  given  to  the  elders  of  the  church. 
"  The  elders  which  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who 
am  also  an  elder,  Feed — Tioiudvate — the  flock  of 
God  which  is  among  you,  taking  the  oversight 
thereof  [exercising  the  office  of  a  bishop — tTtiaxo- 
jtovvtii] — not  by  constraint,  but  willingly."  1  Pet. 
V.  1,2.  Comp.  1  Cor.  ix.  7. 

{d)  The  office  of  teacher  was  designed  to  be  per- 
manent. Eph.  iv.  11.  "He  gave  some  teachers.'^'' 
"  And  God  hath  set  some  in  the  church — thirdly, 
teachers.'"  1  Cor.  xii.  28.  Gal.  vi.  6.  "  Let  him 
that  is  taught  in  the  word  communicate  to  him  that 
teacheth  in  all  good  things."  Rom.  xii.  7.  "  Or  he 
that  teacheth  on   teaching."    Comp.   Acts  xiii.  1. 

1  Cor.  xii.  29.  2  Pet.  ii.  1. 

(e)  The  office  of  an  evangelist,  or  of  a  publisher 
of  the  gospel,  was  designed  to  be  permanent  in  the 
church.  Eph.  iv.  11.  "  He  gave  some  evangelists," 

2  Tim.  iv.  5.  "  But  watch  thou  in  all  things,  do 
the  work  of  an  evangelist."  Comp.  Acts  xxi.  8. 

All  these  offices  relate  to  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel,  and  the  proper  care  and  oversight  of  the 


198 


ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 


church,  and  might  evidently  be  united  in  the  same 
person.  There  is  no  incompatibility  in  them  which 
would  prevent  this,  and  there  is  every  reason  to 
suppose  that  they  were  thus  united.  Nay,  there  is 
positive  evidence  that  in  the  case  of  Timothy,  and 
of  some  of  the  apostles,  they  were  thus  united. 
They  are  not  incompatible  now ;  and  there  is  the 
same  evidence  that  they  were  intended  to  be  perma- 
nent that  there  is  that  the  church  itself  was  designed 
to  be  permanent. 

(2.)  There  were  rnlers  in  the  church  who  are  so 
mentioned  as  to  make  it  evident  that  it  was  designed 
that  there  should  be  in  all  churches  those  who  should 
direct  and  govern  its  affairs.  That  the  permanent  of- 
ficers already  referred  to  were  authorized  to  exercise 
government  over  the  church,  in  addition  to  the  duty 
of  preaching,  of  pastoral  supervision,  and  of  teach- 
ing, is  evident  from  many  places  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, as  well  as  by  the  names  by  which  they  are 
designated ;  but  there  is  also  evidence  that  there  was, 
in  some  churches,  at  least,  a  distinct  class  of  men 
to  whom  the  government  of  the  church  was  especi- 
ally confided.  In  cases  where  a  church  was  esta- 
blished where  there  had  been  a  synagogue,  it 
seems  most  probable  that  the  apostles  would  make 
use  of  the  existing  organization  in  its  government, 
and  engraft  the  Christian  church  on  that  religious 
community  which  they  found  already  in  existence. 
On  this  point,  the  following  remarks  of  Archbishop 


OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  1 09 

Whately  seem  so  well  founded,  that  they  will  pro- 
bably commend  themselves  to  every  one  as  Ibundcd 
in  truth. 

"  It  appears  highly  probable — I  might  say  mo- 
rally certain — that  wherever  a  Jewish  synagogue 
existed  that  was  brought, — the  whole  or  the  chief 
part  of  it, — to  embrace  the  gospel,  the  apostles  did 
not,  there,  so  much  form  a  Christian  church,  (or 
congregation ;  ecclesia,)  as  make  an  existing  con- 
gregation Christian ;  by  introducing  the  Christian 
sacraments  and  worship,  and  establishing  whatever 
regulations  were  requisite  for  the  newly-adopted 
faith ;  leaving  the  machinery  (if  I  may  so  speak) 
of  government  unchanged  ;  the  '  rulers  of  syna- 
gogues, elders,  and  other  officers  (whether  spiritual 
or  ecclesiastical,  or  both)  being  already  provided  in 
the  existing  institutions.  And  it  is  likely  that  seve- 
ral of  the  earliest  Christian  churches  did  originate 
in  this  way  ;  that  is,  that  they  were  converted  syna- 
gogues, which  became  Christian  churches  as  soon 
as  the  members,  or  the  main  part  of  the  members, 
acknowledged  Jesus  as  the  Messiah. 

"  The  attempt  to  effect  this  conversion  of  a  Jew- 
ish synagogue  into  a  Christian  church,  seems  al- 
ways to  have  been  made,  in  the  first  instance, 
in  every  place  where  there  was  an  opening  for 
it.  Even  afler  the  call  of  the  idolatrous  Gentiles, 
it  appears  plainly  to  have  been  the  practice  of 
the  apostles  Paul  and  Barnabas,  when  they  came 


200  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

to  any  city  in  which  there  was  a  synagogue,  to 
go  thither  first  and  deliver  their  sacred  message 
to  the  Jews  and  '  devout  (or  proselyte)  Gentiles ;'— ■ 
according  to  their  own  expression,  (Acts  xiii.  16,) 
to  the  '  men  of  Israel  and  those  that  feared  God  :' 
adding,  that  '  it  was  necessary  that  the  word  of 
God  should  first  be  preached  to  them.' 

"  And  when  they  found  a  church  in  any  of  those 
cities  in  which  (and  such  were,  probably,  a  very 
large  majority)  there  was  no  Jewish  synagogue  that 
received  the  gospel,  it  is  likely  they  would  still  con- 
form, in  a  great  measure,  to  the  same  model."* 

But  there  is  mention  in  the  New  Testament  of 
permanent  officers  appointed  to  rule  the  church  as 
distinct  from  the  teachers  and  pastors.  1  Cor.  xii. 
28.  "  And  God  hath  set  some  in  the  church,  first, 
apostles  ;  secondarily,  prophets ;  thirdly,  teachers  ; 
after  that,  miracles;"  that  is,  those  who  had  the 
power  of  working  miracles ;  then  gifts  of  healing," 
or  those  who  had  the  power  of  healing  the  sick ; 
"  helps,  governments,  diversities  of  tongues."  The 
idea  here  is,  undoubtedly,  that  there  were  those  who 
were  appointed  in  the  church  to  the  business  of 
ruling — as  there  were  for  prophesying,  or  for  teach- 
ing, or  for  healing  the  sick.  Whether  it  refers  to  a 
distinct  class  of  men,  who  were  set  apart  to  this 
work,  and  who  were  to  be  a  permanent  "  order" 

*  Kingdom  of  Christ  Delineated,  pp.  84—86. 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  201 

in  the  church,  cannot,  from  this  passage,  be  deter- 
mined with  certainty,  and  is  not  now  material. 
All  that  is  necessary  to  be  observed  is,  that  there 
were  those  who  were  distinct  from  the  "  apostles," 
and  the  "  prophets,"  and  the  "  teachers,"  whose 
office  it  was  to  administer  the  government  of  the 
church.  The  same  thing  is  apparent  from  1  Tim. 
V.  17.  "  Let  the  elders  that  rule  well  be  counted 
worthy  of  double  honour,  especially  they  who  la- 
bour in  the  word  and  doctrine."  The  plain  mean- 
ing of  this  passage  is,  that  while  there  were  "  el- 
ders" who  laboured  in  "the  word  and  doctrine," 
that  is,  in  preaching,  there  were  also  those  w^ho  did 
not  labour  in  "  word  and  doctrine,"  but  who  yet 
were  appointed  to  "  rule"  in  the  church. 

(3.)  There  were  in  the  church,  as  it  was  organ- 
ized by  the  apostles,  those  who  administered  the 
office  of  deacons ;  and  this  office  is  so  mentioned  as 
to  make  it  evident  that  it  was  designed  to  be  per- 
manent. Acts  vi.  1 — 6.  The  office,  as  there  desig- 
nated, was  to  take  the  charge  of  the  poor,  and  to 
administer  to  them  the  alms  of  the  church.  This 
office  is  subsequently  referred  to  in  such  a  way  as 
to  show  that  it  was  not  designed  to  be  a  temporary 
appointment.  Thus  the  church  of  Philippi  was  or- 
ganized with  such  a  class  of  officers,  and  that  class 
remained  at  the  time  when  the  apostle  addressed 
them  from  Rome.  "  Paul  and  Timotheus,  the  servants 
of  Jesus  Christ,  to  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus,  which 
18 


202  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

are  at  Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and  deacons^  Phil. 
i.  1.  So  in  1  Tim.  iii.  8 — 10,  the  quahfications  of 
"  deacons"  are  so  mentioned  as  to  show  that  this 
was  to  be  a  permanent  office  in  the  church.  "  Like- 
wise must  the  deacons  be  grave,  not  double-tongued, 
not  given  to  much  wine,  not  greedy  of  filthy  lucre, 
holding  the  mystery  of  the  faith  in  a  pure  con- 
science. And  let  these  also  be  first  proved,  then 
let  them  use  the  office  of  a  deacon  being  found 
blameless."  "  Let  the  deacons  be  the  husbands  of 
one  wife,  ruling  their  children  and  their  own  houses 
well.  For  they  that  use  the  office  of  a  deacon  well,  pur- 
chase to  themselves  a  good  degree,  and  great  bold- 
ness in  the  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus."  vs.  12, 13, 
It  is  to  be  remembered  that,  in  the  epistles  to  Ti- 
mothy and  Titus,  the  apostle  was  addressing  those 
who  were  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  who  were 
especially  and  expressly  entrusted  with  the  organ* 
izing  of  churches,  and  the  appointment  of  officers' 
over  them,  (1  Tim.  i.  3,  4.  Titus  i.  5  ;)  and  it  will 
contribute  to  illustrate  what  has  been  said  about  the 
permanent  offices  of  the  church  to  remark  that,  in 
these  epistles,  there  are  no  instructions  given  about 
appointing  any  to  be  the  "  successors  of  the  apos- 
tles" or  to  the  apostolic  office ;  none  in  regard  to 
the  appointment  of  those  who  should  succeed  the 
"  seventy  disciples ;"  none  in  reference  to  the  in- 
stitution of  "  prophets,"  and  none  in  reference  to 
the  appointment  of  "  deaconesses,"  unless  1  Tim. 


OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  203 

V.  3,  9 — 11,  and  Titus  ii.  3,  4,  should  be  regarded 
as  such.  This  circumstance  is  an  additional  con- 
sideration to  show  that  those  were  not  designed 
to  be  permanent  offices  in  the  church,  but  that  they 
were  temporary  in  their  nature.  It  is  scarcely  con- 
ceivable that  in  formal  letters  to  two  ministers  of 
religion,  occupied  mainly  with  instructions  respect- 
ing the  officers  and  the  government  of  the  church, 
there  should  have  been  such  an  omission  if  those 
offices  had  been  designed  to  be  of  a  permanent  cha- 
racter. 

(4.)  There  is  evidence  in  the  New  Testament 
that  it  was  intended  that  there  should  be  a  perma- 
nent relation  between  a  minister  of  the  gospel  and 
a  particular  church ;  or  that  the  pastoral  relation 
should  exist.  The  evidence  of  this  is  found  in  the 
following  considerations. 

(a)  The  name  pastor,  already  adverted  to,  which 
naturally  implies  the  existence  of  the  correlative 
pastoral  charge, — as  the  name  **  shepherd"  natu- 
rally implies  that  there  is  a  feck. 

(6)  The  duty  enjoined  on  the  churches  to  provide 
for  the  wants  of  the  ministers  of  religion,  also,  natu- 
rally implies  the  existence  of  this  relation.  It  could 
scarcely  be  inculcated  as  a  duty  to  support  the 
ministry  in  general,  or  those  to  whom  they  sus- 
tained no  special  relation,  and  the  duty  is  in  fact 
enjoined  on  them  to  support  those  who  laboured 
especially  for  their  benefit.     Gal.  vi.  6.  "  Let  him 


204        ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

that  is  taught  in  the  word  communicate  [impart] 
unto  him  that  teacheth  in  all  good  things."  1  Cor. 
ix.  7.  "  Who  goeth  a  warfare  at  any  time  at  his 
own  charges  7  Who  planteth  a  vineyard  and  eateth 
not  of  the  fruit  thereof?  Or  who  feedeth  a  flock,  and 
eateth  not  of  the  milk  of  the  flock  ?"  Ver.  11.  "If 
we  have  sown  unto  you  spiritual  things,  is  it  a  great 
thing  if  we  shall  reap  your  carnal  things  ?"  Ver. 
14.  "Even  so  hath  the  Lord  ordained,  that  they 
which  preach  the  gospel  should  live  of  the  gospel." 

(c)  Such  permanent  officers  or  pastors  were  ap- 
pointed in  the  church  at  Ephesus.  In  the  discourse 
of  the  apostle  Paul  to  the  "  elders"  of  the  church 
there,  when  assembled  at  Miletus,  he  addresses 
them  as  appointed  to  watch  and  guard  and  govern 
the  church,  evidently  with  the  understanding  that 
they  had  been  appointed  to  their  office  as  a  perma- 
nent relation  between  them  and  the  church  there. 
"  Take  heed,  therefore,  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all 
the  flock,  over  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made 
you  overseers,  to  feed  the  church  of  God  which  he 
hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood.  For  I  know 
this,  that  after  my  departure  shall  grievous  wolves 
enter  in  among  you,  not  sparing  the  flock."  Acts 
XX.  28,  29. 

(d)  The  church  at  Philippi  was  likewise  organ- 
ized with  those  who  are  addressed  as  sustaining  a 
permanent  relation  to  the  church.  "  Paul  and  Timo- 
theus — to  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus  which  are  at 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  205 

Philippi,  with  the  Bisnors  (avv  irtiaxortoii — comp. 
the  account  of  the  "  ciders"  of  Ephesus,  Acts  xx. 
28,  "  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you 
bishops — trticTxoTtovs,)  and  deacons."  Phil.  i.  1.  The 
office  of"  bishop"  or  pastor,  therefore,  in  the  churches 
at  Philippi  and  Ephesus,  was  a  permanent  office. 

(e)  The  same  thing  evidently  existed  in  the 
churches  in  Crete.  Thus  Paul  says  to  Titus,  "For 
this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldst  set 
in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain 
elders  in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee."  Tit. 
i.  5.  This  relation,  therefore,  was  to  be  constituted 
in  every  city  where  there  was  a  church,  and  as  this 
instruction  was  given  to  one  who  was  himself  a 
minister  of  religion,  and  who  was  set  apart  for  the 
purpose  of  aiding  in  the  organization  of  Christian 
churches,  it  follows  that  this  was  designed  to  be  a 
permanent  relation. 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  it  was  contemplated 
that  there  should  be  permanent  officers  in  the 
church,  and  it  is  not  difficult  to  determine  what 
they  were ;  nor  to  ascertain  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment what  officers  were  appointed  only  for  a  tem- 
porary purpose. 

Sect.  2. — The  actual  organization  and  govern- 
ment of  the  church,  as  described  in  the  Netv  Testa- 
ment. 

If  the  above  views  are  correct,  then  but  one  in- 

18* 


206  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

quiry  now  remains.  It  is,  in  what  way  was  the 
government  and  discipline  of  the  church  actually 
administered  ?  Who  appointed  and  ordained  to  the 
office  of  the  ministry?  Who  administered  disci- 
pline? Was  this  done  solely  by  the  "prelate?" 
Was  ordination  performed  by  him  alone  ?  Had  he 
alone  the  right  to  admit  members  to  the  church, 
and  to  exclude  them  from  it? — The  positions  which 
have  been  already  taken  on  this  subject  will  be 
strengthened  by  a  brief  view  of  the  actual  state- 
ments in  the  New  Testament.     I  observe  then, 

1.  That  presbyters  had  the  right  of  ordain- 
ing. If  this  can  be  made  out,  then  this  will  be 
an  additional  consideration  to  show  that  the  main 
point  claimed  for  the  superiority  of  bishops  is  un- 
founded. I  proceed  now,  therefore,  to  show,  that 
there  is  positive  proof  that  presbyters  did  ordain.  I 
have  shown,  in  the  course  of  the  argument,  that 
they  exercised  the  office  of  discipline,  one  of  the 
things  claimed  peculiarly  for  bishops;  and  now 
proceed  to  prove,  that  the  office  of  ordaining  was 
one  which  was  intrusted  to  them,  and  which  they 
exercised.  If  this  point  is  made  out,  it  follows  still 
further,  that  the  peculiarity  of  the  office  of  the  apos- 
tles was  not,  that  they  ordained,  and  that  the  clergy 
of  the  New  Testament  are  not  divided  into  "  three 
orders,"  but  are  equal  in  ministerial  rank  and  power. 
The  argument  is  indeed  complete  without  this ;  for, 
unless  Episcopalians  can  show,  by  positive  proof, 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  207 

the  claims  of  their  prelates  to  the  right  of  ordination 
and  discipline,  the  parity  of  the  clergy  follows  as  a 
matter  of  course. 

I  am  a  Presbyterian.  But  my  argument  does 
not  require  that  I  should  go  largely  into  a  defence 
of  the  form  of  church  government  which  I  regard 
as  most  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  the 
New  Testament.  The  leading  object  of  this  "  In- 
quiry" is  to  disprove  Episcopacy;  and  the  conclu- 
sion which  will  be  reached  on  this  point  is  one  in 
which  all  who  are  not  Episcopalians  will  coincide. 
All  Protestant  denominations,  with  the  single  excep- 
tion of  the  comparatively  small  sect  of  Episcopa- 
lians, are  agreed  in  maintaining  the  doctrine  of  the 
parity  of  the  clergy,  and  the  maintenance  of  this  is 
the  essential  feature  in  which  they  differ  from  the 
advocates  of  Prelacy.  If  the  claims  of  Episcopacy 
in  regard  to  the  "  three  grades,^^  are  disproved,  it 
follows,  that  the  clergy  are  on  an  equality.  If  it  is 
shown  that  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  is 
that  presbyters  were  to  ordain,  it  is  a  sufficient  dis- 
posal of  the  "  feeble  claims  of  lay-ordination,"  and 
of  all  other  claims.  It  will  follow,  that  a  vahd  ordi- 
nation is  that  which  is  performed  in  accordance 
with  the  direction  that  presbyters  should  ordain.  It 
will  follow  also,  as  has  been  remarked,  that  Epis- 
copal ordination  is  valid,  not  because  it  is  performed 
by  a  prelate,  but  because  it  is  in  fact  a  mere  Pres- 
byterian performance.     See  pp.  120 — 123. 


208  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

In  proof  of  the  point  now  before  us,  therefore,  I 
adduce  1  Tim.  iv.  14 :  "Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is 
in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery.''''  Of 
this  passage,  which,  to  the  common  sense  of  man- 
kind, affirms  the  very  thing  under  discussion,  it  is 
evidently  material  for  Episcopalians  to  dispose,  or 
their  claims  to  exclusive  rights  and  privileges  are 
for  ever  destroyed.  I  shall,  therefore,  examine  the 
passage,  and  then  notice  the  objections  to  its  obvi- 
ous and  common-sense  interpretation,  alleged  by 
Dr.  Onderdonk. 

I  observe  then,  (1.)  That  the  translation  is  fairly 
made.  Much  learned  criticism  has  been  exhausted, 
to  very  little  purpose,  by  Episcopalians,  to  show, 
that  a  difference  existed  between  "  with,"  (^uffa)  in 
this  place,  and  "  by,"  (6ta)  in  2  Tim.  i.  6.  It  has 
been  said,  "  that  such  a  distinction  may  justly  be 
regarded  as  intimating,  that  the  virtue  of  the  or- 
daining act  flowed  from  Paul,  while  the  presbytery, 
or  the  rest  of  that  body  if  he  were  included  in  it, 
expressed  only  consent."  Tract,  p.  22.  But  it  has 
never  been  shown,  nor  can  it  be,  that  the  preposition 
"  with"  does  not  fairly  express  the  force  of  the  ori- 
ginal. The  same  observation  may  be  applied  to 
the  word,  "  presbytery,"  {Tt^ia^v-tipLov.)  It  denotes 
properly  an  assembly  or  council  of  elders,  or  pres- 
byters— Versammlung  od.  Rath  der  Aelteren.  Pas- 
sow.     In  Luke  xxii.  QQ^  it  is  applied  to  the  body 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  209 

of  elders  whicli  composed  the  Sanhedrim,  or  Great 
Council  of  the  Jews,  and  is  translated  "  the  elders  of 
the  people :"  to  TtpsajSvtipiov  roi)  %aov.  See  also,  Acts 
xxii.  5  :  "  the  estate  of  the  elders."  The  word  oc- 
curs no  where  else  in  the  New  Testament,  except 
in  the  passage  under  consideration.  Dr.  Onderdonk 
has  endeavoured  to  show,  that  it  means  "  the  office 
to  which  Timothy  was  ordained,  not  the  persons 
who  ordained  him ;  so  that  the  passage  would  read, 
'  with  the  laying  on  of  hands  to  confer  the  presby- 
terate^  or  presbytership,  or  the  clerical  office  ;"  and 
appeals  to  the  authority  of  Grotius  and  Calvin,  in 
the  case.  Tract,  pp.  19,  20.  In  regard  to  this  in- 
terpretation, I  observe,  (a)  That  if  this  be  correct, 
then  it  follows,  that  Timothy  was  not  an  apostle, 
but  an  elder, — he  was  ordained  to  the  office  of  the 
presbyterate,  or  the  eldership.  Timothy,  then,  is 
to  be  laid  out  of  the  college  of  apostles  and  reduced 
to  the  humble  office  of  a  presbyter.  When  prelacy 
is  to  be  established  by  showing  that  the  office  of 
apostles  was  transmitted,  Timothy  is  an  apostle; 
when  it  is  necessary  to  make  another  use  of  this 
same  man,  it  appears  that  he  was  ordained  to  the 
presbytei'ote,  and  he  becomes  a  humble  presbyter, — 
a  "  nose  of  wax"  of  great  convenience  to  the  argu- 
ment for  Episcopacy.  But,  {b)  If  the  word  "  pres- 
bytery" (rtp£(j/3vf£ptoi)  here  means  the  presbyterate, 
and  not  the  persons,  then  it  doubtless  means  the 
same  in  the  two  other  places  where  it  occurs.     In 


210  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

Luke  xxii.  66,  then,  we  receive  the  information  that 
"  the  presbyterate,"  "  the  presbytership,"  or  "  the 
clerical  office"  of  the  people,  that  is,  the  body  by 
which  the  people  conferred  "  the  presbyterate," 
came  together  with  the  scribes.  In  Acts  xxii.  5, 
we  are  informed,  that  the  "  presbyterate,"  or  "  the 
clerical  office,"  would  bear  witness  with  the  high- 
priest  to  the  life  of  Paul.  Such  absurdities  show  the 
propriety  of  adhering,  in  interpretation,  to  the  obvi- 
ous and  usual  meaning  of  the  words,  (c)  The 
word  is  fixed  in  its  meaning,  in  the  usage  of  the 
church.  Suicer  (Thesaurus,)  says,  it  denotes  "  an 
assembly,  congregation,  and  college  of  presbyters 
in  the  Christian  church."  In  all  the  instances  which 
he  quotes  from  Theodoret,  (on  1  Tim.  iv.  14,)  from 
Chrysostom,  (Homil.  xiii.  on  this  epistle,)  from 
Theophylact,  (in  loco,)  and  from  Ignatius,  (Epis. 
to  Antioch,  and  to  the  Trallians,)  there  is  not  the 
slightest  evidence,  that  it  is  ever  used  to  denote  the 
office,  instead  of  the  persons,  of  the  presbytery. 
(d)  As  the  opinion  of  Grotius  is  referred  to  by  Dr. 
Onderdonk,  I  will  quote  here  a  passage  from  his 
commentary  on  this  place.  "  The  custom  was,  that 
the  presbyters  who  were  present  placed  their  hands 
on  the  head  of  the  candidate,  at  the  same  time  with 
the  presiding  officer  of  their  body,"  cum  coBtus  sui 
principe.  "  Where  the  apostles,  or  their  assistants, 
were  not  present,  ordination  took  place  by  the  pre- 
siding officer  (Prcesidem)  of  their  body,  with  the 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  2 1  1 

concurrence  of  the  presbytery," — consentieiite  pres- 
hyterio.  It  is  particularly  surprising  that  the  autho- 
rity of  Calvin  should  have  been  adduced  as  sanc- 
tioning that  interpretation  which  refers  the  word 
presbytery  to  ojice^  and  not  to  persons.  His  words 
are,  "  They  who  interpret  presbytery,  here,  as  a 
collective  noun,  denoting  the  college  of  presbyters, 
are,  in  my  judgment,  right."  My  first  argument, 
then,  is,  that  the  word  "  presbytery,"  denoting  the 
persons  who  composed  the  body,  or  college  cf  elders, 
is  the  proper,  obvious,  and  established  sense  of  the 
passage. 

(2.)  It  is  evident  from  this  passage,  that  whoever 
or  whatever  else  might  have  been  engaged  in  this 
transaction,  a  material  part  of  it  belonged  to  the 
presbytery  or  eldership  concerned.  "  Neglect  not 
the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by 
prophecy;  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
THE  PRESBYTERY."  Here  it  is  evident,  that  the 
presbytery  bore  a  material  part  in  the  transaction. 
Paul  says,  that  the  gift  which  was  in  Timothy  was 
given  him  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  presbytery.  That  is,  that  some  pro- 
phecies relating  to  Timothy,  (comp.  1  Tim.  i.  18, 
"  according  to  the  prophecies  which  went  before  in 
thee,")  had  designated  him  as  a  proper  person  for 
the  ministry,  or  that  it  had  been  predicted  that  he 
would  be  employed  in  the  ministry ;  but  the  prophe- 
cy did  not  invest  him  with  the  office, — did  not  confer 


212        ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

the  gift.  That  was  done, — that  formal  appointment 
fulfilling  the  prophecy, — by  the  imposition  of  the 
hands  of  the  presbytery.  It  was  necessary,  that 
that  act  of  the  presbytery  should  thus  concur  with 
the  prophecy,  or  Timothy  would  have  remained  a 
layman.  The  presbyters  laid  their  hands  on  him, 
and  he  thus  received  his  office.  As  the  prophecy 
made  no  part  of  his  ordination,  it  follows,  that  he 
was  ordained  by  the  presbytery. 

(3.)  The  statement  here,  is  just  one  which  would 
be  given  now  in  a  Presbyterian  ordination ;  it  is  not 
one  which  would  be  made  in  an  Episcopal  ordina- 
tion. A  Presbyterian  would  choose  these  very  words 
to  give  an  account  of  an  ordination  in  his  church ; 
an  Episcopalian  would  not.  The  former  speaks  of 
ordination  by  a  presbytery ;  the  latter,  of  ordination 
by  a  bishop.  The  former  can  use  the  account  of  the 
apostle  Paul,  here,  as  applicable  to  ordination,  with- 
out explanations,  comments,  new  versions,  or  criti- 
cisms; the  latter  cannot.  The  passage  speaks  to 
the  common  understanding  of  men,  in  favour  of 
Presbyterian  ordination — of  the  action  of  a  presby- 
tery in  the  case :  it  never  speaks  the  language  of 
Episcopacy,  even  after  all  the  torture  to  which  it 
may  be  subjected  by  Episcopal  criticism.  The 
passage  is  one,  too,  which  is  not  like  the  "  apostles 
and  elders,"  "  the  apostles,  and  elders,  and  breth- 
ren," the  only  direct  passage  on  which  Episcopacy 
relies,  but  which  has  no  perceptible  connection  with 


OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  2  1  3 

the  case ;  but  it  is  one  which  speaks  on  the  very  sub- 
ject; which  relates  to  the  exact  transaction,  and 
which  makes  a  positive  affirmation  of  the  very  thing 
in  debate. 

(4.)  The  supposition  that  this  was  not  a  presby- 
terial  transaction,  renders  the  passage  unmeaning. 
Here  was  present  a  body  of  men  called  a  presby- 
tery. We  ask  the  Episcopalian,  why  they  were 
there?  The  answer  is,  not  for  the  purpose  of  or- 
dination, but  for  "  concurrence."  Paul,  the  prelate, 
is  the  sole  ordainer.  We  see  Timothy  kneeling  be- 
fore the  presbytery.  We  see  them  solemnly  impose 
their  hands  on  him.  We  ask.  Why  is  this?  ^^ Not 
for  the  purpose  of  ordination,"  the  Episcopalian  re- 
plies, "but  for  concurrence.  Paul  is  the  ordainer." 
But,  we  ask  further.  Had  they  no  share  in  the  or- 
dination? "None  at  all."  Had  they  no  participa- 
tion in  conferring  the  gift  designated  by  prophecy? 
"  None  at  all."  Why,  then,  are  they  present? 
Why  do  they  lay  their  hands  on  him?  For  "  con- 
currence"— for  form,  for  nothing!  It  was  empty 
pageantry,  in  which  they  were  mistaken  when  sup- 
posing that  their  act  had  anything  to  do  in  confer- 
ring the  gift ;  for  their  presence  really  meant  nothing, 
and  the  whole  transaction  could  as  well  have  been 
performed  without,  as  with  them. 

(5.)  If  this  ordination  was  the  joint  act  of  the 
presbytery,  we  have  here  a  complete  Scriptural  ac- 
count of  a  Presbyterian  ordination.  It  becomes 
19 


214 


ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 


then,  a  very  material  question,  how  Episcopalians 
dispose  of  this  passage  of  Scripture.  Their  difficul- 
ties and  embarrassments  in  relation  to  it  will  still 
farther  confirm  the  obvious  interpretation  which 
Presbyterians  suggest,  and  hold.  These  difficulties 
and  embarrassments  are  thus  presented  by  Dr. 
Onderdonk  : 

He  first  doubts,  whether  this  transaction  was  an 
ordination.  Tract,  pp.  18,  19.  To  this  I  answer, 
(1.)  That,  if  it  were  not,  then  there  is  no  account 
that  Timothy  was  ever  ordained;  (2.)  That  there  is 
no  specific  work  mentioned  in  the  history  of  the 
apostles  to  which  Timothy  was  designated,  unless 
it  was  ordination;  (3.)  That  it  is  the  oftuiows and  fair 
meaning  of  the  passage;  (4.)  That,  if  tliis  does  not 
refer  to  ordination,  it  would  be  easy  to  apply  the 
same  denial  to  all  the  passages  which  speak  of  the 
"  imposition  of  hands,"  and  to  show  that  there  was 
no  such  thing  as  ordination  to  the  ministry,  in  any 
case;  (5.)  That  it  accords  with  the  common  usage 
of  the  terms — "  imposition  of  hands" — ETtiesats  t^v 
X£ip<Zv — in  the  New  Testament.  The  phrase  occurs 
but  four  times: — Acts  viii.  18;  1  Tim.  iv.  14; 
2  Tim.  i.  6 ;  Heb.  vi.  2.  In  all  these  places,  it 
evidently  denotes  conferring  some  gifl,  office,  or 
favour,  described  by  the  act.  In  2  Tim.  i.  6,  it  de- 
notes, by  the  acknowledgment  of  all  Episcopalians, 
ordination  to  the  ministry.  Why  should  it  not 
here?   (6.)  If,  as  Dr.  Onderdonk  supposes,  it  refers 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  2 1  5 

to  "  an  inspired  designation  of  one  already  in  the 
ministry,  to  a  particular  field  of  duty,"  (Tract,  p. 
19,)  then,  (a)  I  ask,  ^vhy  we  have  no  other  mention 
of  this  transaction]  [b)  How  is  it  to  be  accounted 
for,  that  Paul,  while  here  evidently  referring  Timo- 
thy to  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  the  minis- 
terial office  in  general,  should  not  refer  to  his  ordi- 
nation, but  to  a  designation  to  a  particular  field  of 
labour  ?  His  argument  to  Timothy,  on  such  a  sup- 
position, would  be  this :  '  Your  office  of  a  minister 
of  the  gospel  is  one  that  is  exceedingly  important. 
A  bishop  must  be  blameless,  vigilant,  sober,  of  good 
behaviour,  given  to  hospitality,  apt  to  teach,  not 
given  to  wine,  etc.  (Chap,  iii.)  In  order  to  impress 
this  more  deeply  on  you,  I  refer  you — not  to  the 
solemnity  of  your  ordination  vows — but  /  solemnly 
remind  you  of  aw  inspired  separation  of  one  already 
in  the  ministry,  to  a  particular  field  of  dutyJ*  I 
need  only  observe  here,  that  this  is  not  a  mode  of 
argument  which  looks  like  Paul.     But, 

Secondly.  Dr.  Onderdonk  supposes,  that  this 
was  not  a  Presbyterian  ordination.  Tract,  pp.  19 — 
21.  His  first  supposition  is,  that  the  word  "pres- 
bytery" does  not  mean  the  persons  but  the  office,  p. 
19.  This  has  been  already  noticed.  He  next  sup- 
poses, (pp.  20,  21,)  that  if  "the  presbytery"  here 
means  not  the  office  given  to  Timothy,  but  a  body 
of  elders,  it  cannot  be  shown  "of  whom  this  or- 
daining presbytery  was  composed,"  p.  21.     And 


216  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

he  then  proceeds  to  state,  that  there  are  "  seven 
modes"  in  which  this  "  presbytery"  might  be  com- 
posed. It  might  be  made  up  of  "  ruUng  elders ;"  or, 
it  might  be  composed  of  the  *'  grade  called  presby- 
ters;" or,  as  Peter  and  John  called  themselves 
"elders,"  it  might  be  made  up  of  "apostles;"  or, 
"  there  may  have  been  ruling  elders  and  presbyters; 
or,  presbyters  and  one  or  more  apostles ;  or,  ruling 
elders  and  one  or  more  of  the  apostles ;  or,  ruling 
elders,  and  presbyters,  and  apostles,"  p.  21.  Now, 
as  Dr.  Onderdonk  has  not  informed  us  which  of 
these  modes  he  prefers,  we  are  left  merely  to  con- 
jecture. We  may  remark  on  these  suppositions, 
(1.)  That  they  are  mere  suppositions.  There  is  not 
the  shadow  of  proof  to  support  them.  The  word 
"  presbytery" — Hpio^vtBpi.ov — does  not  appear  to  be 
such  a  difficult  word  of  interpretation,  as  to  make  it 
necessary  to  envelop  it  in  so  much  mist  in  order  to 
understand  it.  Dr.  Onderdonk's  argument  here  is 
such  as  a  man  always  employs  when  he  is  pressed 
by  difficulties  which  he  cannot  meet,  and  when  he 
throws  himself  into  a  labyrinth,  in  the  hope,  that 
amidst  its  numerous  passages,  he  may  escape  de- 
tection, and  evade  pursuit.  (2.)  If  this  "  body  of 
elders"  was  made  up  of  "ruling  elders,"  or,  "of 
the  grade  called  presbyters,"  then  the  argument  of 
Episcopacy  is  overthrown.  Here  is  an  instance, 
on  either  supposition,  of  Presbyterian  ordination 
which  is  fatal  to  the  claims  that  bishops  only  or- 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CIIl  RCII.  217 

dain.  Or,  if  it  be  supposed  that  this  was  not  an 
ordination,  but  "an  inspired  separation  of  one  al- 
ready in  the  ministry  to  a  particular  field  of  duty," 
it  is  an  act  equally  fatal  to  the  claim  of  prelates  to 
the  general  "superintendence"  of  the  church;  since 
it  is  manifest,  that  these  "ciders"  took  upon  them- 
selves the  functions  of  this  office,  and  designated 
"  the  bishop  of  Ephesus"  to  his  field  of  labour. 
Such  a  transaction  would  scarcely  meet  with  Epis- 
copal approbation  in  the  nineteenth  century. 

But  in  regard  to  the  other  supposition,  that  a  part 
or  all  the  "presbytery"  was  composed  of  apostles, 
I  remark,  (1.)  That  it  is  a  merely  gratiiitovs  sup- 
position. There  is  not  an  instance  in  which  the 
term  "presbytery,"  or  "body  of  elders,"  is  applied 
in  the  New  Testament  to  the  collective  body  of  the 
apostles.  (2.)  On  the  supposition  that  the  "  pres- 
bytery" was  composed  entirely  of  apostles,  then, 
how  does  it  happen  that,  in  2  Tim.  i.  6,  Paul  ap- 
propriates to  himself  a  power  which  belonged  to 
every  one  of  them  in  as  full  right  as  to  him?  How 
came  they  to  surrender  that  power  into  the  hands 
of  an  individual?  Was  it  the  character  of  Paul  thus 
to  assume  authority  which  did  not  belong  to  him? 
We  have  seen,  already,  how,  on  the  supposition  of 
the  Episcopalian,  he  superseded  "  bishop"  Timothy 
in  the  exercise  of  discipline,  in  Corinth,  and  in  his 
own  "diocese"  at  Ephesus:  we  have  now  an  in- 
stance in  which  he  claims  all  the  virtue  of  the  or- 
19* 


218  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

daining  power  where  his  fellow  apostles  must  have 
been  equally  concerned. 

But  if  a  part  only  of  this  "  presbytery"  was 
composed  of  apostles,  and  the  remainder  presby- 
ters, either  ruling  elders,  or  "  the  second  grade,"  I 
would  make  the  following  inquiries:  Was  he  or- 
dained as  a  prelate?  So  the  Episcopalians  with 
one  voice  declare — prelate  of  Ephesus.  Then  it 
follows,  that  Timothy,  a  prelate,  was  set  apart  to 
his  work,  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  elders. 
What  was  then  his  prelatical  character?  Does  the 
water  in  the  cistern  rise  higher  than  the  fountain? 
If  laymen  were  concerned,  Timothy  was  a  layman 
still.  If  presbyters,  Timothy  was  a  presbyter  still. 
And  thus  all  the  power  of  prelates,  from  him  of 
Rome  downward,  has  come  through  the  hands  of 
humble  presbyters — just  as  all  non-Episcopalians 
believe,  and  just  as  history  affirms.  Or  was  he 
ordained  as  a  presbyter  1  Then  his  Episcopal  char- 
acter, so  far  as  it  depends  on  his  ordination,  is  swept 
away ;  and  thus  we  have  not  a  solitary  instance  of 
the  consecration  of  a  prelate,  in  all  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

Which  of  these  suppositions  Episcopalians  would 
be  ,disposed  to  receive  as  the  true  one,  is  not  known. 
All  of  them  cannot  be  true ;  and  whichever  is  pre- 
ferred, is,  as  we  have  seen,  equally  fatal  to  the 
argument,  and  involves  a  refutation  of  the  claims  of 
prelacy. 


OF  THK  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  2  1  9 

The  only  other  reply  with  which  Dr.  Ondcrdonk 
meets  the  argument  for  Presbyterian  ordination 
from  this  passage,  is  by  the  supposition  that  the 
virtue  of  the  ordaining  act  was  derived  from  the 
apostle  Paul.  The  passage  on  which  he  rests  the 
argument  is  (2  Tim.  i.  6,)  "that  thou  stir  up  the  gift 
of  God,  which  is  in  thee,  by  the  putting  on  of  my 
hands."  On  this  passage  I  observe,  (1.)  Paul  does 
not  deny  that  other  hands  were  also  imposed  on 
Timothy,  nor  that  his  authority  was  derived  also 
from  others  in  conjunction  with  himself.  (2.)  That 
by  the  supposition  of  Episcopalians,  as  well  as  Pres- 
byterians, other  hands  were,  in  fact  imposed  on  him. 
(3.)  It  was  perfectly  natural  for  Paul,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  relation  which  Timothy  sustained  to 
him,  as  his  adopted  son;  (1  Tim.  i.  2,)  as  being 
selected  by  him  for  the  ministry;  (Acts  xvi.  3,)  and 
as  being  his  companion  in  his  travels,  to  remind 
him,  near  the  close  of  his  own  life,  (2  Tim.  iv.  6,) 
that  he  had  been  solemnly  set  apart  to  the  work  by 
himself — to  bring  his  own  agency  into  full  view — in 
order  to  stimulate  and  encourage  him.  That  Paul 
had  a  part  in  the  act  of  the  ordination  is  admitted; 
that  others  also  had  a  part — the  "  presbytery" — has 
been  proved.  (4.)  The  expression  which  is  here 
used  is  just  such  as  an  aged  Presbyterian  minister 
would  now  use,  if  directing  a  farewell  letter  to  a  son 
in  the  ministry.  He  would  remind  him,  as  Paul 
does  in  this  epistle,  (2  Tim.  iv.  6,)  that  he  was  about 


220  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

to  leave  the  ministry  and  the  world;  and,  if  he 
wished  to  impress  his  mind  in  a  peculiarly  ten- 
der, manner,  he  would  remind  him,  also,  that  he 
took  part  in  his  ordination;  that,  under  his  own 
hands,  he  had  been  designated  to  the  work  of  the 
ministry ;  and  would  endeavour  to  deepen  his  con- 
viction of  the  importance  and  magnitude  of  the  work, 
by  the  reflection,  that  he  had  been  solemnly  set  apart 
to  it  by  a  father.  Yet  who  would  infer  from  this, 
that  the  aged  Presbyterian  would  wish  to  be  regard- 
ed as  a  prelate  ? 

Dr.  Onderdonk  remarks  on  this  case,  (Tract,  p. 
22,)  that,  if  Paul  was  engaged  in  the  transaction,  it 
was  the  work  of  an  apostle,  and  was  "  an  apostolic 
ordination."  It  is  admitted  that  it  was  an  '■^apostolic 
ordination;"  but  when  will  Episcopalians  learn  to 
suppose  it  possible  that  an  "  apostolic  ordination" 
was  not  a  prelatical  ordination  ?  Is  it  not  obvious 
that  this  is  assuming  the  very  point  in  debate, 
that  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office  was  the 
power  of  ordaining  1  I  reply  further,  that  whoever 
was  engaged  in  it,  a  "  presbytery"  was  concerned, 
and  it  was  a  Presbyterian  ordination. 

I  have  now  considered  all  the  objections  that  have 
been  made  to  the  obvious  interpretation  of  this  pas- 
sage, and  it  may  now  be  submitted  to  any  candid 
mind  as  a  full  and  unqualified  statement  of  an  in- 
stance of  Presbyterian  ordination.  Whichever  of 
the  half-dozen  suppositions — assuming  a  hue,  cha- 


■  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  221 

meleon  like,  from  the  nature  of  the  argument  to  be 
refuted — which  Episcopahans  are  compelled  to  ap- 
ply to  the  passage,  is  adopted,  we  have  seen  that 
they  involve  them  in  all  the  difficulties  of  an  un- 
natural interpretation,  and  conduct  us,  by  a  more 
circuitous  route,  only  to  the  plain  and  common-sense 
exposition  of  the  passage,  as  decisive  in  favour  of 
Presbyterian  ordination. 

It  has  thus  been  shown  that  there  was  one  Pres- 
byterian ordination,  in  the  case  of  Timothy,  and 
this,  too,  in  perhaps  the  only  instance  of  ordination 
to  the  ministry  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  this  should  be  allowed  to  settle  the  question. 
As  there  is  no  other  undisputed  case  of  ordination 
referred  to  in  the  New  Testament,  and  as  we  may 
presume  that  on  an  occasion  of  the  kind  here  re- 
ferred to  every  thing  essential  to  a  valid  ordination 
would  be  observed,  it  demonstrates  that  yreshyters 
had  the  right  to  ordain. 

2.  The  churches  were  intrusted  with  the  right  of 
administering  discipline.  It  has  been  shown  at 
length  in  the  examination  of  the  claims  of  the 
*'  bishop"  to  administer  discipline,  and  to  exercise 
supervision,  (ch.  iii.  §  3,)  that  this  claim  is  not  sus- 
tained by  the  authority  of  the  New  Testament.  In 
further  confirmation  of  these  views,  and  to  show  the 
nature  of  the  organization  of  the  Christian  church, 
I  shall  now  show  that  the  churches  were  intrusted 
with  this  right,  and  were  required  to  exercise  it  them- 


222  OROA.NIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

selves.  In  support  of  this,  I  adduce  the  following 
passages  of  Scripture : 

Acts  XX.  17,  28.  "  From  Miletus,  Paul  sent  to 
Ephesus,  and  called  for  the  presbyters,  (-^ws 
TtpfcrjSrT'ipwj,)  of  the  church,  and  said  unto  them ; 
Take  heed  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over 
which  the  holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  bishops, 
(^irtiaxortovi,)  to  feed  [noLfiaivsiv)  the  church  of  God." 
It  would  be  easy  to  show,  that  the  word  translated 
feed,  includes  the  whole  duty  which  a  shepherd  ex- 
ercises over  his  flock,  including  all  that  is  needful 
in  the  supervision,  government,  and  defence,  of  those 
under  his  care.  Proof  of  this  may  be  found  in  the 
following  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  where 
the  word  occurs  in  the  sense  of  ruling,  or  govern- 
ing, including  of  course  the  exercise  of  discipline ; 
for  how  can  there  be  government,  unless  there  is 
authority  for  punishing  offenders?  Matt.  ii.  6;  John 
xxi.  16;  1  Pet.  V.  2;  Rev.  ii.  27.  "And  he  shall 
rule  them  (rioii^tavsi  aini'ors)  with  a  rod  of  iron ;"  an 
expression  which  will  be  allowed  to  imply  the  ex- 
ercise of  discipline.  Rev.  xii.  5 ;  xix.  15 ;  comp.  Ps. 
ii.  9;  xxiii.  1;  xxvii.  12;  xlvii.  13,  and  the  Iliad  of 
Homer  may  be  consulted,  passim,  for  this  use  of  the 
word.     See  particularly  I.  263;  II.  85. 

1  Pet.  V.  2,  3.  "  The  presbyters  (rtptcf/SnT'fpwj) 
who  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  also  a  pres- 
byter. Feed  (Ttoi/xdvats)  the  flock  of  God  which 
is  among  you,  taking  the  oversight  (irttffxoTtovvTfs^ 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  223 

discharging  the  duly  of  bishops)  thereof,  not  by- 
constraint,  but  willingly."  Here  the  very  work 
which  is  claimed  for  prelates  is  enjoined  on  presby- 
ters, and  the  very  name  which  prelates  assume  is 
given  to  presbyters,  and  Peter  ranks  himself  as  on 
a  level  with  them  in  the  office  of  exercising  disci- 
pline, or  in  the  government  of  the  church.  It  is 
perfectly  obvious,  that  the  presbyters  at  Ephesus, 
and  the  presbyters  whom  Peter  addressed,  were  in- 
trusted with  the  pastoral  care  to  the  fullest  extent, 
for  they  were  required  to  engage  in  all  the  work  re- 
quisite in  instructing,  directing,  and  governing  the 
flock.  And  it  is  as  obvious,  that  they  w^ere  intrusted 
with  a  power  and  an  authority  in  this  business,  with 
which  presbyters  are  not  intrusted  by  the  canons  of 
the  Episcopal  church.  It  is  respectfully  asked, 
whether  the  bishop  of  Pennsylvania,  or  New  Jersey, 
would  now  take  1  Pet.  v.  2,  3,  for  a  text,  and  ad- 
dress the  "  priests,"  or  "  second  order  of  clergy," 
in  these  words,  without  considerable  qualification : 
"  The  PRESBYTERS  who  are  among  you  I  exhort, 
who  am  also  a  presbyter.  Feed  [rioifidvaii)  the 
flock  of  God,  discharging  the  duty  of  bishops  over 
it  (iTticxortovvtsi)  not  by  constraint,  neither  as  being 
LORDS  over  God''s  heritage." 

Heb.  xiii.  7.  "  Remember  them  which  have  the 
rule  over  you  :  twv  r^ywfxtviov  i^wv,  i^our  rulers." 
Verse  17,  "Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over 
you."     Htldeads  tot$  Tjyovfiivoii  vfiuv.     That  bishops 


224  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

are  here  referred  to,  no  one  will  pretend.  Yet  the 
office  of  ruling  certainly  implies  that  kind  of  go- 
vernment which  is  concerned  in  the  administration 
of  discipline. 

1  Thess.  V.  12.  "  We  beseech  you  brethren,  to 
know  them  which  labour  among  you,  and  are  over 

you   in   the    Lordy      xal   Ttpo'iotafxivovi  vjxCjv  bv  xvpi<p. 

1  Tim.  V.  17.  "  Let  the  presbyters  that  rule  well 
(rtpoeatMtii)  be  counted  of  double  honour."  There 
can  be  no  question,  that  these  passages  are  applied 
to  presbyters.  We  come,  then,  to  the  conclusion, 
that  the  terms  which  properly  denote  govern- 
ment and  discipline,  and  on  which  alone  any 
claim  for  the  exercise  of  authority  can  be  founded 
— the  terms  expressive  of  governing,  of  feeding,  of 
ruling,  of  taking  the  oversight,  are  all  applied  to 
presbyters ;  that  the  churches  are  required  to  sub- 
mit to  them  in  the  exercise  of  that  ofSce ;  and  that 
the  very  term  denoting  Episcopal  Jurisdiction  is 
applied  to  them  also.  We  ask  for  a  solitary  passage 
which  directs  apostles,  or  prelates,  to  administer 
discipline ;  and  the  case  of  discipline,  therefore,  may 
be  left  to  the  common  sense  of  those  who  read  the 
New  Testament,  and  who  believe  that  presbyters 
had  any  duties  to  perform. 

But  further.  The  churches  were  authorized  to 
administer  discipline  in  connection  with  the  presiding 
officers,  and  such  an  account  is  given  of  this  matter 
as  to  lead  to  the  inevitable  conclusion,  that  the 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  225 

churches  were  always  consulted,  and  that  discipline 
was  never  administered  by  an  independent  foreign 
minister,  such  as  an  Episcopal  bishop  is.  The  case 
of  the  church  of  Corinth,  the  one  on  which  Episco- 
palians most  rely,  has  already  been  considered,  and 
it  lias  been  proved  that  even  there  the  apostle  Paul 
did  not  assume  the  authority  of  excluding  a  member 
without  the  concurrence  and  action  of  the  church. 
Of  a  similar  character  is  the  direction  given  to  the 
church  at  Thessalonica.  "And  if  any  man  obey 
not  our  word  by  this  epistle,  note  that  man,  and 
have  no  company  with  him,  that  he  may  be 
ashamed."  2  Thess.  iii.  14.  There  the  church 
was  directed  to  administer  discipline  itself,  if  there 
was  a  member  in  it  who  was  disobedient  to  the  in- 
spired command  of  the  apostle.  The  direction  is, 
not  to  observe  him,  and  to  report  him  to  the  apostle 
or  the  "  bishop,"  but  it  is  to  proceed  themselves  to 
the  act  of  discipline,  and  so  to  exclude  him  as  to 
have  no  company  with  him.  And  of  the  same  na- 
ture is  the  direction  of  the  Saviour  himself,  in  the 
solemn  command  which  lays  the  foundation  for  the 
only  authority  for  administering  discipline  at  all  in 
the  churches.  "  Moreover,  if  thy  brother  shall 
trespass  against  thee,  go  and  tell  him  his  fault  be 
tween  thee  and  him  alone;  if  he  shall  hear  thee, 
thou  hast  gained  thy  brother.  But  if  he  will  not 
hear  thee,  then  take  with  thee  one  or  two  more,  that 
in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses,  every  word 
20 


226 


ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 


may  be  established.  And  if  he  shall  neglect  to  hear 
them,  tell  it  unto  the  church ;  but  if  he  neglect  to  hear 
the  church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  an  heathen  man 
and  a  publican."  Matt,  xviii.  15 — 17.  In  regard 
to  this  passage,  it  may  be  observed,  (1,)  that  it  is  to 
be  presumed  that  the  Saviour  designed  to  embody 
the  principles  of  discipline  here  so  that  they  might 
be  applied  in  all  ages  of  the  world,  and  so  that  this 
in  all  circumstances  would  be  an  adequate  direction. 
There  is  not  any  where  in  the  New  Testament  a 
more  formal  direction  given  on  the  subject  of  disci- 
pline, and  it  can  hardly  be  presumed  that  the  Saviour 
would,  on  such  an  occasion,  have  omitted  what  he 
designed  should  be  an  essential  and  a  permanent 
principle.  (2.)  The  apostles  were  at  that  time 
chosen  and  ordained,  (Matt,  x.,)  and  if  he  had  de- 
signed that  they  alone  should  have  the  power  of 
administering  discipline,  it  is  unaccountable  that 
there  is  no  intimation  whatever  that  so  important  a 
function  was  conferred  on  them.  The  direction 
"  Tell  it  to  the  church,''''  [dni  t^  ixx'K'y^olq-)  is  not 
one  which  would  be  understood  as  referring  to  the 
apostles,  as  being  in  fact  "  the  church."  It  is  a 
direction  which  would  naturally  be  understood  as 
referring  to  the  assembly  of  the  faithful.  (3.) 
Equally  unaccountable  is  it  that  no  reference  is 
made  to  the  "  successors''^  of  the  apostles,  as  having 
the  power  to  administer  discipline,  and  that  this 
should  be  left  to  be  a  standing  subject  of  mistake 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  227 

in  all  ages  of  the  world.  Even  now,  to  the  great 
body  of  plain  Christians,  this  direction  can  with 
difficulty  be  understood  as  meaning  that  when  an 
offence  is  committed,  the  brother  who  is  injured 
must  tell  it  to  "  the  bishop"  as  the  "  successor  of 
the  apostles,"  and  that  if  the  offender  will  not  hear 
him,  he  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  "  heathen  man  and  a 
publican."  (4.)  This  direction  of  the  Saviour  is 
not  complied  with  in  Episcopal  churches,  nor  under 
their  arrangement  is  it  possible  that  it  should  be. 
The  "  bishop"  intrusted  with  the  administration  of 
discipline  is  not  "  the  church,"  nor  does  "  the 
church"  ever  have  an  opportunity  of  deciding  on 
the  case  as  the  Saviour  contemplated.  The  whole 
authority  to  administer  discipline  is  claimed  by  the 
"  bishop"  by  divine  right,  as  one  of  the  preroga- 
tives of  his  office;  and  "the  church"  is  excluded 
from  all  participation  in  saying  either  collectively 
or  by  representatives,  whether  the  offender  shall,  or 
shall  not,  be  regarded  "  as  a  heathen  man  and  a 
publican."  The  church  has  no  option  in  the  case, 
except  at  the  ultimate  will  of  the  prelate. 

The  authority  thus  claimed  by  the  bishop  is  a 
part  of  a  system  of  usurpations  on  the  prerogatives 
conferred  by  the  Saviour  on  others.  We  have  seen 
that  he  has  usurped  the  prerogative  of  being  re- 
garded as  the  peculiar  "  successor"  of  the  apostles ; 
that  he  has  usurped  the  exclusive  power  of  ordain- 
ing— thus  depriving  presbyters  of  a  right  conferred 


228  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

on  them  in  the  New  Testament ;  that  he  has  usurped 
the  right  of  "  confirmation" — if  it  should  exist  at  all 
in  the  church,  thus  practically  declaring  that  the 
pastor  is  disqualified  from  admitting  his  own  mem- 
bers to  the  communion,  and  claiming  that  there  is 
some  heavenly  influence  imparted  through  his 
hands  which  can  be  conferred  by  no  other  minister 
of  religion ;  and  we  now  see  that  this  system  of  usur- 
pation is  completed  by  depriving  the  church  and 
the  eldership  wholly  of  the  right  of  administering 
discipline  over  an  offending  member,  thus  claiming 
that  the  whole  of  this  tremendous  power  should  be 
lodged  in  his  hands.  The  standing,  the  influence, 
the  character  of  each  one  of  the  thousands  of  a  "dio- 
cese" is  thus  lodged  ultimately  in  the  hands  of  one 
man — a  man  who  is  a  stranger;  who  is  bound 
to  them  by  none  of  the  tender  ties  of  the  pastoral 
relation;  and  who  has  the  sole  power  to  decide  the 
case,  if  brought  before  him,  without  appeal.  Now, 
we  may  ask,  where  any  thing  like  this  is  to  be  found 
in  the  New  Testament?  Did  the  Saviour  contemplate 
that  the  voice  of  the  church  should  never  be  heard 
in  the  discipline  of  its  own  members  ?  On  what  basis 
is  it  that  this  tremendous  power  is  claimed,  thus  de- 
priving the  churches  of  rights  and  prerogatives  in- 
dubitably conferred  on  them  by  their  Great  Head? 
It  is  a  part  of  a  great  system  of  usurpation  which 
began  when  ambition  began  in  the  church;  which 
has  been  fostered  to  give  authority  to  the  high- 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  229 

er  "orders"  of  the  priesthood;  and  which  finds 
its  appropriate  place  only  in  the  corruptions  of  the 
papacy. 

Sect.  3. — The  primitive  churches  were  organ- 
ized without  a  prelate,  and  without  three  ^^  orders 
of  clergy:' 

In  support  of  this,  I  shall  adduce  the  case  of  one 
church  at  least  that  was  not  organized  on  the  prin- 
ciples of  Episcopalians,  with  three  orders  of  clergy. 
I  refer  to  the  church  at  Philippi.  "  Paul  and  Tim- 
othy, servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in 
Christ  Jesus,  who  are  at  Philippi,  with  the  bishops 
and  deacons" — ovp  InLaxbrioii  xal  Swawcovotj.  In  regard 
to  this  church,  I  make  the  following  observations. 
(1.)  It  was  organized  by  the  apostle  Paul  himself, 
in  connection  with  Silas,  and  was,  therefore,  on  the 
truly  "  primitive  and  apostolic"  plan.  Acts  xvi. 
(2.)  It  was  in  the  centre  of  a  large  territory,  the 
capital  of  Macedonia,  and  not  likely  to  be  placed  in 
subjection  to  a  diocesan  of  another  region.  (3.)  It 
was  surrounded  by  other  churches ;  as  we  have  ex- 
press mention  of  the  church  at  Thessalonica,  and 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel  at  Berea.  Acts  xvii. 
(4.)  There  is  mention  made  of  but  two  orders  of 
men.  What  the  deacons  were,  we  know  from  the 
appointment  in  Acts  vi.  1 — 6.  They  were  desig- 
nated, not  to  preach,  but  to  take  care  of  the  poor 
members  of  the  church,  and  to  distribute  the  alms  of 
20* 


230  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

the  saints.  As  we  have  there,  in  the  original  ap- 
pointment of  the  office,  the  express  and  extended 
mention  of  its  functions,  we  are  to  infer  that  the 
design  was  the  same  at  Philippi.  The  other  class, 
therefore — the  "  bishops,"  constitute  the  preaching 
order,  or  the  clergy — those  to  whom  were  committed 
the  preaching  of  the  word,  the  administration  of  the 
sacraments,  and  the  discipline  of  the  church.  Now, 
either  these  bishops  were  prelates,  or  they  were  the 
pastors,  the  presbyters  of  the  church.  If  Episco- 
palians choose  to  say,  that  they  were  prelates)  then 
it  follows,  (a)  that  there  was  a  plurality  of  such  pre- 
lates in  the  same  diocese,  the  same  city,  and  the  same 
church ;  which  is  contrary  to  the  fundamental  idea 
of  Episcopacy.  It  follows,  also,  (b)  that  there  was 
entirely  wanting,  in  this  church,  the  "  second  order" 
of  clergy ;  that  an  Episcopal  church  was  organized, 
defective  in  one  of  the  essential  grades,  with  an  ap- 
pointment of  a  body  of  prelates  without  presbyters ; 
that  is,  an  order  of  "  superior"  men,  designated  to 
exercise  jurisdiction  over  "  priests"  who  had  no  ex- 
istence. If  it  be  said,  that  the  "  presbyters,"  or 
*'  second  order,"  might  have  been  there  though  Paul 
did  not  expressly  nanae  them;  then  we  are  presented 
with  the  remarkable  fact,  that  he  specifies  the  dea- 
cons, an  inferior  order,  and  expresses  to  them  his 
Christian  salutations;  that  he  salutes  also  the 
"  saints" — or  the  private  members  of  the  church, 
and   yet   entirely   disregards   those   who    had  the 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  231 

special  pastoral  charge  of  the  church.  Paul  thus 
becomes  a  model  of  disrespect  and  incivility.  In 
the  epistles  to  Timothy,  he  gives  him  directions 
about  every  thing  else,  but  no  counsel  about  his 
brother  "  prelates ;"  in  the  epistles  to  the  churches, 
he  salutes  their  prelates,  and  their  deacons,  but  be- 
comes utterly  regardless  of  the  "  second  order  of 
clergy,"  the  immediate  pastors  of  the  churches. 

But  if  our  Episcopal  brethren  prefer  to  say,  that 
the  "  bishops"  here  mean  not  prelates,  but  presby- 
ters, we,  so  far,  shall  agree  with  them ;  and  then  it 
follows,  (a)  That  here  is  an  undeniable  instance  of 
a  church,  or^  rather  of  a  group  of  churches  large 
enough  to  satisfy  the  reasonable  desire  of  any  dio- 
cesan bishop  for  extended  jurisdiction,  organized 
without  any  prelate.  None  is  mentioned ;  and  there 
are  but  two  orders  of  men,  to  whom  the  care  of  the 
"  saints  at  Philippi"  is  intrusted,  (b)  If  there  was 
a  prelate  there,  then  we  ask,  why  Paul  did  not  refer 
to  him,  with  affectionate  salutations?  Why  does  he 
refer  to  "  the  second  and  third  orders  of  clergy," 
without  the  slightest  reference  to  the  man  who  was 
"  superior  to  them  in  ministerial  rank  and  power?" 
Was  Paul  jealous  of  the  prelate?  Or  have  we  here 
another  instance  of  indecorum  and  incivility  ?  (c)  If 
they  had  had  a  prelate,  and  the  see  was  then  vacant, 
why  is  there  no  reference  to  this  fact?  W^hy  no  con- 
dolence at  their  loss?  Why  no  prayer  that  God 
would  send  them  a  man  to  enter  into  the  vacant 


232  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

diocese?  (d)  Episcopalians  have  sometimes  felt  the 
pressure  of  these  difficulties  to  be  so  great,  that  they 
have  supposed  the  prelate  was  absent  when  this 
epistle  was  addressed  to  the  church  at  Philippi,  and 
that  this  was  the  reason  why  he  was  not  remem- 
bered in  the  salutation.  Of  this  solution,  I  observe 
only,  that  it  is  mere  assumption.  But  even  granting 
this  assumption,  it  is  an  inquiry  of  not  very  easy 
solution,  why  Paul  did  not  make  some  reference  to 
this  fact,  and  ask  their  prayers  for  the  absent  pre- 
late. One  can  scarcely  help  being  forcibly  remind- 
ed, by  the  ineffectual  efforts  of  Episcopalians  to  find 
a  prelate  at  Philippi,  of  a  remarkable  transaction 
mentioned  in  1  Kings  xviii.  27,  28.  "Either  he  is 
talking  ;  or  he  i^  pursuing ;  or  he  is  in  a  journey  ; 
or  peradventure  he  sleepeth,  and  must  be  awak- 
ed." It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remark,  that,  if  a 
single  church  is  proved  to  have  been  organized 
without  the  '■'- three  orders  of  clergy,"  the  parity  of 
the  ministry  is  made  out  by  apostolic  appointment, 
and  the  Episcopal  argument  is  at  an  end. 

I  may  add,  that  this  view  of  the  organization  of 
the  church  in  Philippi  is  confirmed  by  an  examina- 
tion of  the  organization  -of  the  church  in  its  imme- 
diate neighbourhood,  in  Thessalonica.  In  the  two 
epistles  which  Paul  directed  to  that  church,  there  is 
not  the  slightest  reference  to  any  prelatical  bishop  ,* 
there  is  no  mention  of  "  three  orders  of  clergy;" 
there  is  no  hint,  that  the  church  was  organized  on 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  233 

that  plan.  But  one  order  of  ministers  is  mentioned, 
evidently  as  entitled  to  the  same  degree  of  respect, 
and  as  on  an  entire  equality.  They  were  clearly  of 
the  same  rank,  and  engaged  in  discharging  the 
functions  of  the  same  office.  "And  we  beseech  you, 
brethren,  to  know  them  which  labour  among  you, 
and  are  over  you  in  the  Lord,  and  admonish  you; 
and  to  esteem  them  very  highly  in  love,  for  their 
work's  sake."  1  Thess.  v.  12,  13.  Will  the  advo- 
cates of  Episcopacy  be  kind  enough  to  inform  us, 
why  there  is  no  mention  of  the  prelate,  whether 
present  or  absent? 

We  are  here  prepared  to  estimate  the  force  of 
the  undeniable  fact,  that  there  is  no  distinction  of 
grade  or  rank  in  the  names  which  are  given  to  the 
ministers  of  the  gospel  in  the  New  Testament.  It 
is  admitted  by  Episcopalians  themselves,  that  the 
names  bishop,  presbyter,  etc.,  in  the  Bible,  do  not 
denote  those  ranks  of  church-officers  to  which  they 
are  now  applied,  but  are  given  indiscriminately  to 
nil.  On  this  point,  we  have  the  authority  of  Dr. 
Onderdonk.  "  The  name  '  bishop,'  "  says  he,  "  which 
now  designates  the  highest  grade  of  the  ministry,  is 
not  appropriated  to  this  office  in  Scripture.  That 
name  is  given  to  the  middle  order,  or  presbyters; 

and  ALL  THAT  WE    READ    IN  THE    NEW  TESTA3IENT 

CONCERNING  'BISHOPS,'  (including,  of  course,  the 
words  '  overseers,'  and  '  oversight,'  which  have  the 
same  derivation,)  is  to  be  regarded  as  pertain- 


234  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

ING     TO     THIS      MIDDLE     GRADE."         Tract,     p.     12. 

"  Another  irregularity  of  the  same  kind,  occurs  in 
regard  to  the  word  *  elder.'  It  is  sometimes  used 
for  a  minister,  or  clergyman  of  any  grade,  higher, 
middle,  or  lower;  but  it  more  strictly  signifies  a 
presbyter."  Tract,  p.  14. 

In  accordance  with  this  fact,  which  is  as  re- 
markable as  it  is  true,  we  have  seen  that  Peter 
applies  to  himself  the  name  presbyter,  and  puts  him- 
self on  a  level  with  other  presbyters.  "  The  pres- 
byters which  are  among  you,  I  exhort,^^  (not  I  com- 
mand, or  enjoin^  as  a  prelate  would  do,)  "  who  am 
also  a  presbyter."  1  Pet.  v.  1.  And  in  the  very 
next  verse,  he  exhorts  them,  (the  elders,  or  presby- 
ters,) to  "  feed  the  flock  of  God,  taking  the  over- 
sight," (irtiaxoTtovvtsi  exercising  the  office  of  bishop,) 
*'  not  by  constraint." 

Now  let  these  conceded  facts  be  borne  in  mind. 
The  term  presbyter  is  applied  to  the  apostles.  "  All 
that  we  read  of  in  the  New  Testament  concerning 
'  bishops,'  is  applied  to  the  middle  grade."  "The 
apostles  address  each  other,  and  their  brethren,  by 
the  same  terms — by  no  words  or  names  that  indi- 
cate superior  rank,  grade,  or  authority.  This  fact 
can  be  accounted  for,  only  on  the  supposition  that 
they  regarded  themselves  as  ministers,  as  on  a  level. 
If  they  meant  to  teach  that  one  class  was  superior 
in  rank  and  power  to  others,  they  would  not  have 
used  terms  always  confounding  such  distinctions, 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  235 

and  always  proceeding  on  the  supposition  that  they 
were  on  an  equality.  It  will  not  be  pretended  that 
they  could  not  employ  terms  which  would  have 
marked  the  various  grades.  For  if  the  term  "  bish- 
op" can  now  do  it,  it  could  have  done  it  then;  if  the 
term  presbyter  can  now  be  used  to  denote  "  the 
middle  grade,"  it  could  then  have  been  so  used.  It 
is  clear,  also,  that  if  such  had  been  their  intention 
they  would  have  thus  employed  those  terms.  That 
the  sacred  writers  were  capable  of  using  language 
definitely.  Episcopalians  will  not  doubt.  Why,  then, 
if  they  were  capable,  did  they  choose  not  to  do  it? 
Are  prelates  now  ever  as  vague  and  indefinite  in 
their  use  of  the  terms  "  bishop"  and  "  presbyters," 
as  were  the  apostles?  Why  were  the  latter  so  unde- 
sirous  of  having  "the  pre-eminence?"  3  John  9. 

It  is  remarkable,  also,  that  the  mode  of  using  these 
terms  in  the  New  Testament  is  precisely  in  accord- 
ance with  the  usage  in  Presbyterian  and  Congrega- 
tional churches.  They  speak  indiscriminately  of 
their  ministers,  just  as  the  sacred  writers  did,  as 
"  bishops,"  as  "  pastors,"  as  "  teachers,"  as  "  evan- 
gelists." They  regard  their  ministers  as  on  an 
equality.     Did  not  the  sacred  writers  do  the  same? 

It  is  as  remarkable,  that  the  mode  of  using  these 
terms  in  the  Episcopal  churches,  is  not,  (ex  con- 
cessis,)  that  which  occurs  in  the  Bible.  And  it  is 
as  certain,  that  were  they  thus  to  use  those  terms 
it  would  at  once  confound  their  orders  and  ranks, 


236  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

and  reduce  their  ministers  to  equality.  Do  we  ever 
see  any  approximation  in  their  addresses,  and  in 
their  canons,  in  this  respect,  to  the  language  and 
style  of  the  New  Testament  1  Do  we  ever  hear  of 
bishop  Tyng,  or  bishop  Hawkes,  or  bishop  Schroe- 
der,  or  bishop  Stone?  Do  we  ever  hear  of  presbyter 
Ives,  or  Doane,  or  Onderdonk?  How  would  lan- 
guage like  this  sound  in  the  mouth  of  a  prelatical 
bishop?  Would  not  all  men  be  amazed,  as  if  some 
new  thing  under  the  sun  had  happened  in  the  Epis- 
copal church  ?  And  yet,  it  is  to  be  presumed,  that 
the  terms  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  designate 
any  office,  may  be  used  still.  It  cannot  be  improper 
to  call  things  by  their  true  names,  and  to  apply  to 
all  ranks  and  orders  of  men  the  terms  which  are 
applied  to  them  by  the  Spirit  of  inspiration.  And  as 
the  indiscriminate  use  of  these  terms  is  carefully 
avoided  by  the  customs  and  canons  of  the  Episcopal 
church ;  as  there  seems  to  have  been  a  presentiment 
in  the  formation  of  those  canons  that  such  indis- 
criminate use  would  reduce  the  fabric  to  simple 
"  parity"  of  the  clergy ;  and  as  these  terms  cannot  be 
so  used  without  reducing  these  "  ranks  and  orders" 
to  a  Scriptural  equality,  we  come  to  the  conclusion, 
that  the  apostles  meant  to  teach  that  the  ministers 
of  the  New  Testament  are  equal  in  ministerial  rights 
and  powers. 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  237 

Sect.  4. — Conclusion. 

I  have  now  gone  through  this  entire  subject.  I 
have  examined,  I  trust,  in  a  candid  manner — I  am 
sure  with  the  kindest  feelings  towards  my  Episcopal 
brethren — every  argument  which  they  have  to  ad- 
duce from  the  Bible  in  favour  of  the  claims  of  their 
bishops.  Those  arguments  have  been  disposed  of, 
step  by  step.  These  are  all  the  arguments  which 
Episcopacy  has  to  urge  from  the  Bible.  There  is 
nothing  that  remains.  The  subject  is  exhausted. 
Episcopacy  rests  here ;  and  it  is  incumbent  on  Epis- 
copacy to  shoWf  not  to  affirm,  that  our  interpretation 
of  those  passages  is  not  sustained  by  sound  princi- 
ples of  exegesis. 

The  burden  of  proof  still  lies  on  them.  They 
assumed  it  and  on  them  it  rests.  They  affirm  that 
enormous  powers  are  lodged  in  the  hands  of  the  pre- 
late— every  thing  pertaining  to  ordination,  to  confir- 
mation, to  discipline,  to  the  superintendence  of  the 
Christian  church.  They  claim  powers  for  the  "  bi- 
shop," which  would  degrade  every  presbyter  in  the 
world ;  which  would  reduce  him  to  the  condition  of  a 
subordinate  officer,  and  which  would  strip  him  of  the 
right  of  transmitting  his  own  office,  and  of  adminis- 
tering discipline  among  his  own  flock.  They  arro- 
gate powers,  which  go  to  deprive  all  other  presbyters 
except  Episcopal  presbyters  of  any  right  to  officiate 
in  the  church  of  God ;  rendering  their  ordination  in- 
21 


238  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

valid,  their  administration  void,  and  their  exercise  of 
the  functions  of  their  office  a  daring  and  impious  in- 
vasion of  the  rights  of  the  priesthood,  and  a  violation 
of  the  law  of  Christ.  The  foundation  for  these  sweep- 
ing, and  certainly  not  very  modest  claims,  I  have 
examined  with  all  freedom.  The  argument  for  pre- 
lacy may  be  summed  up  in  a  word.  It  consists  in  the 
text — the  solitary  text — "  the  apostles  atid  elders," 
"  the  apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren,"  joined  to 
a  circuitous  train  of  reasoning,  remote  from  common 
apprehension,  and  too  abstruse  for  the  guidance  of 
the  mass  of  men.  Step  by  step,  I  have  followed 
them  in  their  circuits ;  argument  after  argument,  I 
have  endeavoured  patiently  to  displace;  and  at  the 
conclusion,  I  may  ask  any  person  of  plain  common 
sense  to  place  his  finger  on  that  portion  of  the  book 
of  God  which  is  favourable  to  prelacy. 

This  argument  for  the  authority  of  prelates  hav- 
ing been  met  and  disproved,  I  have  produced  an 
instance  of  express  Presbyterian  ordination  in  the 
case  of  Timothy.  Two  churches  we  have  found 
which  were  organized  without  prelates.  We  are 
thus,  by  another  train  of  argument,  conducted  to 
the  same  result, — that  prelates  are  unknown  in  the 
New  Testament.  And,  to  make  the  argument  per- 
fectly conclusive,  it  has  been  shown  that  the  same 
titles  are  applied  indiscriminately  to  all. 

This  argument  may  be  summed  up  in  still  fewer 
words.     The  Episcopal  claims  are  not  made  out ; 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  239 

and,  of  course,  the  clergy  of  the  New  Testament 
are  equal.  The  Episcopalian  has  failed  to  show  that 
there  were  different  grades  ;  and  it  follows,  that 
there  must  be  parity. 

In  conducting  this  argument,  I  have  endeavour- 
ed to  show  that  the  claims  of  Episcopalians  are 
unfounded,  and,  at  the  same  time,  that  there  were 
some  arrangements  in  regard  to  the  constitution, 
government,  and  officers  of  the  church  which  were 
designed  to  be  permanent.  The  general  principles  of 
church  organization  were  laid  down  as  binding ;  the 
details  were  not  prescribed.  They  were  left,  like 
the  subject  of  civil  government,  to  be  modified  by 
circumstances  from  age  to  age.  The  gospel  was  to 
be  preached  in  all  lands,  and  in  all  times ;  the  church 
was  to  be  located  under  different  forms  of  civil  go- 
vernment, and  among  people  of  far  different  habits 
and  customs ;  the  organization  of  the  Christian 
community  was  to  be  such  as  would  be  consistent 
and  proper  under  a  civil  government  of  the  monar- 
chical, the  aristocratic,  or  the  republican  form.  Those 
regulations  in  detail  which  would  be  fitted  to  the 
customs  of  the  Oriental  world,  might  be  little  adapted 
to  habits  which  might  exist  towards  the  setting  sun ; 
and  rites,  and  customs,  and  modes  of  worship  and 
of  discipline  which  would  have  been  appropriate 
to  the  times  when  the  apostles  lived,  might  be  ill- 
adapted  to  some  future  age  of  the  world.  The  same 
great  principles  of  truth  and  worship  might  receive 


240  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

new  influence  and  power  under  some  modified  form 
in  a  future  age ;  and  the  external  arrangements  of 
the  church  might  be  left,  as  the  subject  of  human 
government  is,  somewhat  to  the  developments  of 
time  and  experience.  Truth  is  always  the  same. 
The  doctrines  of  religion  were  not  susceptible  of 
being  modified.  Nor  was  it  necessary,  or  desirable. 
But  the  details  of  worship,  and  order,  and  discipline 
in  the  church  did  not  require  or  admit  of  the  same 
explicitness  which  were  requisite  in  regard  to  the 
doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  the  atonement. 

The  following  remarks  of  Archbishop  Whately 
on  this  subject,  seem  to  me  to  be  so  weighty  and 
important,  as  to  demand  the  profound  attention  of  all 
who  would  understand  the  constitution  of  the  Chris- 
tian church. 

"  Among  the  important  facts  which  we  can  col- 
lect and  fully  ascertain  from  the  sacred  historians, 
scanty  and  irregular  and  imperfect  as  are  their  re- 
cords of  particulars,  one  of  the  most  important  is, 
that  very  scantiness  and  incompleteness  in  the 
detail ; — that  absence  of  any  full  and  systematic 
description  of  the  formation  and  regulation  of  Chris- 
tian communities,  that  has  been  just  noticed.  For 
we  may  plainly  infer,  from  this  very  circumstance, 
the  design  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  those  details, 
concerning  which  no  precise  directions,  accompanied 
with  strict  injunctions,  are  to  be  found  in  Scripture, 
were  meant  to  be  left  to  the  regulation  of  each 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  241 

church,  in  each  age  and  country.  On  any  point  in 
which  it  was  designed  that  all  Christians  should 
be,  every  where,  and  at  all  times,  bound  as  strictly 
as  the  Jews  where  to  the  Levitical  law,  we  may 
fairly  conclude  they  would  have  received  directions 
no  less  precise,  and  descriptions  no  less  minute, 
than  had  been  afforded  to  the  Jews. 

"  It  has  often  occurred  to  my  mind  that  the  ge- 
nerality of  even  studious  readers  are  apt,  for  want 
of  sufficient  reflection,  to  fail  of  drawing  such  im- 
portant inferences  as  they  often  might,  from  the 
omissions  occurring  in  any  work  they  are  perusing; 
— from  its  not  containing  such  and  such  things  re- 
lative to  the  subject  treated  of.  There  are  many 
cases  in  which  the  non-insertion  of  some  particu- 
lars which,  under  other  circumstances,  we  might 
have  calculated  on  meeting  with,  in  a  certain  book, 
will  be  hardly  less  instructive  than  the  things  we  do 
meet  with. 

"  And  this  is  much  more  especially  the  case 
when  we  are  studying  works  which  we  believe  to 
have  been  composed  under  divine  guidance.  For, 
in  the  case  of  mere  human  compositions,  one  may 
conceive  an  author  to  have  left  out  some  important 
circumstances,  either  through  error  of  judgment  or 
inadvertency,  or  from  having  written  merely  for  the 
use  of  a  particular  class  of  readers  in  his  own  time 
and  country,  without  any  thought  of  what  might  be 
necessary  information  for  persons  at  a  distance  and 
21* 


242  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

in  after-ages ;  but  we  cannot,  of  course,  attribute  to 
any  such  causes  omissions  in  the  inspired  writers. 
On  no  supposition  whatever  can  we  account  for  the 
omission,  by  all  of  them,  of  many  points  which 
they  do  omit,  and  of  their  scanty  and  shght  mention 
of  others,  except  by  considering  them  as  withheld 
by  the  express  design  and  will  (whether  covimuni- 
cated  to  each  of  them  or  not)  of  their  Heavenly 
Master,  restraining  them  from  committing  to  writing 
many  things  which,  naturally,  some  or  other  of 
them,  at  least,  would  not  have  failed  so  to  record. 

"  No  such  thing  is  to  be  found  in  our  Scriptures 
as  a  catechism,  or  regular  Elementary  Introduction 
to  the  Christian  Religion ;  nor  do  they  furnish  us 
with  any  thing  of  the  nature  of  a  systematic  creed, 
set  of  articles.  Confession  of  Faith,  or  by  whatever 
other  name  one  may  designate  a  regular,  complete 
compendium  of  Christian  doctrines :  nor,  again,  do 
they  supply  us  with  a  liturgy  for  ordinary  public 
worship,  or  with  forms  for  administering  the  sacra- 
ments, or  for  conferring  holy  orders ;  nor  do  they 
even  give  any  precise  directions  as  to  these  and 
other  ecclesiastical  matters  ; — any  thing  that  at  all 
corresponds  to  the  rubric,  or  set  of  canons."* 

I  here  close  this  inquiry  into  the  organization  and 
government  of  the  apostolic  church.  As  there  is 
nothing  in  the  Bible  which  Episcopacy  can  add,  the 

*  Kingdom  of  Christ  Delineated,  pp.  80—83. 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  243 

whole  subject  here  should  be  allowed  to  rest.     The 
entire  scriptural  argument  is  exhausted  ;  and  here 
the  inquiry  ends.     In  conclusion,  I  may  remark, 
that  I  speak,  I  believe,  the  language  of  the  great 
body  of  those  who  are  not  Episcopalians — and  the 
language  expresses  the  convictions  of  my  intellect, 
and  the  feelings  of  my  heart — when  I  say,  that  we 
have  no  unkind  emotions  towards  those  who  believe 
that  Episcopacy  is  founded  on  the  word  of  God,  and 
is  the  form  of  church  government  best  adapted  to 
promote  the  cause  of  the  Redeemer  of  the  world. 
We  do  not  forget  the  former  services  which  the 
Episcopal  church  rendered  to  the  cause  of  truth  and 
of  the  world's  redemption.  We  remember  the  bright 
and  ever-living  lights  which  her  clergy,  and  her 
illustrious  laymen,  have  in  other  times  enkindled  in 
the  darkness  of  this  world's  history,  and  which  con- 
tinue to  pour  their  pure  and  steady  lustre  on  the 
literature,  the  laws,  and  the  customs  of  Christian 
nations  ;  and  we  trust  the  day  will  never  come  when 
the  bosoms  of  Christians  in  any  denomination  will 
cease  to  beat  with  emotions  of  lofty  thanksgiving 
to  the  God  of  grace  that  he  raised  up  such  gifted 
and  holy  men,  to  meet  the  corruptions  of  the  Pa- 
pacy, and  to  breast  the  wickedness  of  the  world. 

We  have  no  unkind  emotions  towards  any  branch 
of  the  true  church  of  God.  We  strive  to  cherish 
feelings  of  affectionate  regard  for  them  all,  and  to 
render  praise  to  the  common  Father  of  Christians, 


244  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

for  any  efforts  which  are  made  to  advance  the  in- 
telligence, the  purity,  and  the  salvation  of  mankind. 
In  our  views  of  the  nature  of  mind  and  of  freedom, 
we  can  have  no  uncharitable  emotions  towards  any 
denomination  of  true  Christians.     "  There  are  di- 
versities of  organizations,  but  the  same  Spirit."  We 
have  no  expectation  that  all  men,  in  this  world,  will 
think  ahke ;  and  we  regard  it  as  a  wise  arrangement 
that  the  church  of  God  is  thus  organized  into  dif- 
ferent sections  and  departments,  under  the  banner 
of  the  common  Captain  of  their  salvation.     It  pro- 
motes inquiry.     It  prevents  complacency  in  mere 
forms  and  ceremonies.     It  produces  healthy  and 
vigorous  emulation.     It  affords  opportunities  for  all 
classes  of  men  to  arrange  themselves  according  to 
their  preferences,  and  their  habits  of  thought.    And 
it  is  not  unfavourable  to  that  kindness  of  feeling 
which  the  Christian  can  cherish,  and  should  cherish, 
when  he  utters  in  the  sanctuary,  the  article  of  his 
faith,  '^  I  believe  in  the  holy  catholic  church,  the 
communion  of  saints."     The  attachment  of  a  sol- 
dier to  a  particular  company  or  squadron,  need  not 
diminish  his  respect  for  the  armies  of  his  country, 
or  extinguish  his  love  of  her  liberty.     His  being 
joined  to  a  company  of  infantry,  need  not  make 
him  feel  that  cayalry  is  useless,  or  involve  him  in  a 
controversy  with  the  artillery. 

We  ask  only,  that  Episeopacy  should  not  assume 
arrogant  claims ;  that  she  should  be  willing  to  take 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHIRCIT.  245 

her  place  among  other  denominations  of  Christians, 
entitled  like  them,  to  all  the  tender  and  sympathetic 
affections  of  the  Christian  brotherhood,  and  wil- 
ling, that  they  should  walk  in  the  liberty  wherewith 
Christ  has  made  his  people  free.  We  ask  that 
while  we  cheerfully  concede  this,  she  also  should 
concede  to  all  those  who  "  love  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  in  sincerity,"  the  right  to  be  accredited  as 
being  true  churches  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  as  hav- 
ing a  valid  ministry  and  valid  ordinances.*  We 
shall  have  no  contest  with  our  Episcopal  brethren 
for  loving  the  church  of  their  choice,  and  the  church 
in  which  they  seek  to  prepare  themselves  for  heaven. 

*  This  right  is  conceded  inform  by  the  author  of  the 
"Tract"  so  often  noticed  in  tliis  argument — Dr.  Onder- 
donk.  "An  apparently  formidable,  }et  extraneous  diffi- 
culty," says  he,  "often  raised  is,  that  Episcopal  claims 
unchurch  all  non-episcopal  denominations,  Bi/  the  pre- 
sent writer  this  consequence  is  not  allowed."  p.  6.  But  is 
it  ever  conceded  in  any  other  way,  or  ever  acted  on?  Is 
there  any  recog-nition  of  the  ministers  of  other  denomina- 
tions as  having"  a  right  to  preach  tlie  g-ospel?  Is  there 
any  introduction  of  them  to  the  pulpits  of  Episcopal 
churches?  Would  such  an  introduction  by  any  of  the 
"inferior  clergy"  be  tolerated  or  connived  at  by  the  dio- 
cesan bishop?  To  ask  these  questions  is  to  answer  them. 
But  another  question  may  be  asked  here.  It  is,  how  can 
many  of  the  clerg-y  of  tlie  Episcopal  church  be  satisfied 
with  occupying  such  a  position  in  regard  to  their  minis- 
terial brethren  of  other  denominations,  as  to  have  the 
fair  interpretation  of  their  conduct  to  be  that  they  reg-ard 
them  as  wholly  unauthorized  to  preach  the  gospel?  Do 
they  really  believe  thisi*  If  they  do  not,  does  not  Chris- 
tian candour,  fairness,  independence,  and  jus/Zce  require 
them  in  act  and  word  to  avow  it? 


246  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

We  shall  not  utter  the  language  of  unkindness  for 
their  reverencing  the  ministerial  office  in  which  the 
spirits  of  Cranmer  and  Leighton  were  prepared  for 
their  eternal  rest.  Content  that  other  denomina- 
tions should  enjoy  like  freedom,  when  they  do  not 
arrogate  to  themselves  unholy  claims,  and  attempt 
to  "  lord  it  over"  other  parts  of  "  God's  heritage," 
we  shall  pray  for  their  success,  as  for  that  of  all 
other  Christians,  and  rejoice  in  their  advancement. 
But  the  moment  they  cross  this  line ;  the  moment 
they  make  any  advances  which  resemble  those  of 
the  papacy ;  the  moment  they  set  up  the  claim  of 
being  the  only  "  primitive  and  apostolical  church ;" 
and  the  moment  they  speak  of  the  "  invalid  minis- 
try" and  the  "  invalid  ordinances"  of  other  churches, 
and  regard  them  as  "  left  to  the  uncovenanted  mer- 
cies of  God,"  that  moment,  the  language  of  argu- 
ment and  of  Christian  rebuke  should  be  heard  from 
every  other  denomination.  There  are  minds  which 
can  investigate  the  Bible  as  well  as  the  advocates 
for  Episcopacy  ;  there  are  pens  which  can  compete 
with  any  found  in  the  Episcopal  church ;  and  there 
are  men  who  will  not  be  slow  to  rebuke  the  first 
appearance  of  arrogance  and  of  lordly  assumption, 
and  who  will  remind  them  that  the  time  has  gone  by 
when  an  appeal  to  the  infallible  church  will  answer 
in  this  controversy.  Arrogant  assumptions  do  not 
suit  the  present  state  of  intelligence  in  this  land,  or 
the  genius  of  our  institutions.    While  the  Episcopal 


OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  247 

church  shall  seek,  by  kind  and  gentle  means,  to 
widen  its  influence,  like  the  flowing  of  a  river,  or 
like  the  dews  of  heaven,  we  shall  hail  its  advances ; 
when  she  departs  from  this  course,  and  utters  the 
language  of  authority  and  denunciation ;  when  she 
endeavours  to  prostrate  other  churches,  as  with  the 
sweepings  of  the  mountain-torrent, — she  will  be 
reminded,  by  a  voice  uttered  from  all  the  institu- 
tions of  these  times,  that  Episcopacy  has  had  its 
reign  of  authority  in  the  dark  ages,  and  at  the  Vati- 
can ;  and  that  the  very  genius  of  Protestantism  is, 
that  one  church  is  not  to  utter  the  language  of  arro- 
gance over  another,  and  that  not  authority  or  denun- 
ciation, but  SCRIPTURAL  EXPOSITION,  25  to  determine 
which  is  in  accordance  with  the  book  of  God. 

We  have  no  war  to  wage  with  Episcopacy.  We 
know,  we  deeply  feel,  that  much  may  be  said  in 
favour  of  it,  apart  from  the  claim  which  has  been 
set  up  for  its  authority  from  the  New  Testament. 
Its  past  history,  in  some  respects,  makes  us  weep ; 
in  others,  it  is  the  source  of  sincere  rejoicing  and 
praise.  We  cannot  forget,  indeed,  its  assumptions 
of  power,  or  hide  from  our  eyes  the  days  of  the 
Papacy,  when  it  clothed  in  sackcloth  the  Christian 
world.  We  cannot  forget  the  days  in  its  history, 
when  even  as  a  part  of  the  Protestant  religion,  it 
has  brought  *'  a  numb  and  chill  stupidity  of  soul,  an 
inactive  blindness  of  mind,  upon  the  people,  by  its 
leaden  doctrine;"  we  cannot  forget  "the  frozen 


248  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

captivity"  of  the  church,  "  in  the  bondage  of  pre- 
lates ;"*  nor  can  we  remove  from  our  remembrance 
the  sufferings  of  the  Puritans,  and  the  bloody  scenes 
in  Scotland.     But  we  do  not  charge  this  on  the 
Episcopacy  of  our  times.     We  do  not  believe  that 
it  is  essential  to  its  existence.     With  more  grateful 
feelings,  we  recall  other  events  of  its  history.     We 
associate  it  with  the  brightest  and  happiest  days  of 
religion,  and  liberty,  and  literature,  and  law.     We 
remember  that  it  was  under  the  Episcopacy  that  the 
church  in  England  took  its  finn  stand  against  the 
Papacy  ;  and  that  this  was  its  form  when  Zion  rose 
to  light  and  splendour  from  the  dark  night  of  ages. 
We  remember  the  name  of  Cranmer, — Cranmer, 
first,  in  many  respects,  among  the  reformers ;  that 
it  was  by  his  steady  hand,  that,  under  God,  the  real 
church  of  the  Saviour  was  conducted  through  the 
agitating  and  distressing  times  of  Henry  the  Eighth. 
We  remember  that  God  gave  this  distinguished  pre- 
late access  to  the  heart  of  one  of  the  most  capri- 
cious, cruel,  inexorable,  blood-thirsty,   and  licen- 
tious monarchs  that  has  disgraced  the  world ;  and 
that,  for  the  sake  of  Cranmer,  and  his  church,  he 
conducted  Henry  as  "  by  a  hook  in  the  nose,"  and 
made  him  faithful  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
when  faithful  to  none  else — so  that,  perhaps,  the 
only  redeeming  trait  in  the  character  of  Henry  is 

*  Milton. 


OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  249 

his  fidelity  to  this  first  British  prelate  under  the 
reformation.*  The  world  will  not  soon  forget  the 
names  of  Latimer,  and  Ridley,  and  Rogers  and 
Bradford ;  names  associated  in  the  feelings  of  Chris- 
tians with  the  long  list  of  ancient  confessors  "  of 
whom  the  world  was  not  worthy,"  and  who  did 
honour  to  their  nature  and  to  mankind  by  sealing 
their  attachment  to  the  Son  of  God  in  the  flames. 
Nor  can  we  forget,  that  we  owe  to  the  Episcopal 
church  that  which  fills  our  mind  with  gratitude  and 
praise  when  we  look  for  examples  of  consecrated 
talent,  elegant  literature,  and  humble  piety.  While 
men  honour  elevated  Christian  feeling ;  while  they 
revere  sound  learning ;  while  they  render  tribute  to 
clear  and  profound  reasoning,  they  will  not  forget 
the  names  of  Barrow,  and  Taylor;  of  Tillotson, 
Hooker,  and  Butler ; — and  when  they  think  of  hum- 
ble, pure,  sweet,  heavenly  piety,  their  minds  will 
recur  instinctively  to  the  name  of  Leighton.  Such 
names  do  honour  to  the  world.  When  we  think  of 
them,  we  have  it  not  in  our  hearts  to  utter  one  word 


*  It  may  be  proper  here  to  remark,  that  Cranmer  by 
no  means  entertained  the  modern  views  of  the  scriptural 
authority  of  bishops.  He  maintained  "that  the  appoint- 
ment to  spiritual  offices  belongs  indifferently  to  bishops, 
to  princes,  or  to  the  people,  according-  to  the  pressure  of 
existing  circumstances.  He  affirmed  the  original  identity 
of  bishops  and  presbyters,-  and  contended  that  nothing 
more  than  mere  election,  or  appointment,  is  essential  to 
the  sacerdotal  office,  without  consecration,  or  any  other 
solemnity."  Le  Bas'  Life  of  Cranmer,  vol.  i.  p.  197. 
22 


250  ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

against  a  church  which  has  thus  done  honour  to  our 
race,  and  to  our  common  Christianity. 

Such  we  wish  Episcopacy  still  to  be.  There  are 
minds  and  hearts,  we  doubt  not,  which  will  find 
more  edification  in  the  forms  of  worship  in  that 
church,  than  in  any  other.  To  all  who  hold  essen- 
tial truth,  we  bid  God  speed ;  and  for  all  such  we 
lift  our  humble  supplications  to  the  God  of  all  mer- 
cy, that  he  will  make  them  the  means  of  spreading 
the  gospel  around  the  globe.  We  have  never  doubt- 
ed that  many  of  the  purest  flames  of  devotion  which 
rise  from  the  earth  ascend  from  the  altars  of  the 
Episcopal  church,  and  that  many  of  the  purest 
spirits  which  the  earth  contains  minister  at  those 
altars,  or  breathe  forth  their  prayers  and  praises 
in  language  consecrated  by  the  use  of  piety  for 
centuries. 

We  have  but  one  wish  in  regard  to  Episcopacy. 
We  wish  her  not  to  assume  arrogant  claims.  We 
wish  her  not  to  utter  the  language  of  denunciation. 
We  wish  her  to  fall  in  with  the  spirit  of  the  age. 
Our  desire  is  that  she  may  become  throughout, — 
what  we  would  fain  hope  she  is  increasingly  becom- 
ing,— the  warm,  devoted  friend  of  revivals  and  of 
missionary  operations.  She  is  consolidated ;  well- 
marshalled  ;  under  an  efficient  system  of  laws ;  and 
pre-eminently  fitted  for  powerful  action  in  the  field 
of  Christian  warfare.  We  desire  to  see  her,  with 
her  dense,  solid  organization;  with  her  unity  of 


OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  251 

movement ;  with  her  power  of  maintaining  the  posi- 
tion which  she  takes ;  and  with  her  eminent  abiUty 
to  advance  the  cause  of  sacred  learning,  and  the 
love  of  order  and  of  law,  accompanying  other 
churches  in  the  conquests  of  redemption  in  an 
alienated  world  ; — and  whatever  positions  may  be 
assigned  to  other  denominations,  we  will  cherish 
the  hope  that  the  Episcopal  church  is  destined  yet 
to  consecrate  her  wealth  and  power  to  the  work  of 
making  a  perpetual  aggression  on  the  territories  of 
sin  and  of  death. 


THE    END. 


Princeton   Theological   Seminary   Libraries 

llllillllilli  lllllli 


1    1012  01210  8454 


<  r 


■■i'-D        (' 


W'U'*. 


